Terrible lack of awareness

[pizanno]

NCAA 1-19.4 states any shot-clock LEDs should be located on the shot clock itself. Backboard LEDs are only for game clock. Can you imagine if the clock differentials were only 0.1-0.3?

One thing I'll give the crew credit for is how they handled the explanation. Brought coaches together to explain, allowed for brief question, then whistled and clearly signaled final ruling.

From his gesturing during discussion, my guess is the trail was (mistakenly) adamant the ball hit the rim. Lead (crew chief?) didn't have enough info to overrule and went with his partners call. Looking forward to jeshmit's findings.

Agree that everyone needs to have an opinion on this play, including table.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by pizanno

Agree that everyone needs to have an opinion on this play, including table.

I disagree. The table has an interest in the outcome, whether we want to admit that or not. They could give you information that is totally contrary to what you see and only involving them is going to cause a problem if you do not go with them or even if you go with what they say to you. I would leave them out of this totally other than ask if the clock ran out. The crew has to know.

Peace

[pizanno]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree. The table has an interest in the outcome, whether we want to admit that or not. They could give you information that is totally contrary to what you see and only involving them is going to cause a problem if you do not go with them or even if you go with what they say to you. I would leave them out of this totally other than ask if the clock ran out. The crew has to know.

JRut-

You don't trust any of your table crews? I've come across many inexperienced table crews, but not many that I thought were cheaters/liars.

Since this crew was counting the score anyways, it would've done no harm to ask the home shot clock timer, "did you see the shot hit the rim?".

If the timer says "yes" or "i'm not sure", then they score the try and game over just like they did anyways.

However, if the timer says "absoultely not", then the crew can cancel score, award visitors the ball with ~1.8-2.3 on the clock and have a positive sportsmanship/integrity story to share.

I've been bailed out many times by my table crews (reporting wrong #, not seeing ball go in basket, shot clock memory) many in favor of the visitors. I'll continue to lean on those I trust when I make my next mistake.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by pizanno

JRut-

You don't trust any of your table crews? I've come across many inexperienced table crews, but not many that I thought were cheaters/liars.

This is not about trusting the table people. This is about who is going to have their butt in a ringer if we get this wrong. The crew on the floor cannot save us from everything and certainly not a judgment if the ball hit the rim. And in my experience in dealing with college table crews, We cannot trust them with to start the shot clock properly, let alone ask them to tell us from a fixed position if the ball hit the rim or not. And yes even if you listen to them, why put them in that situation where someone will accuse them of funny business. Did you hear the conspiracies that are being flown around about the for what happened in the AFC Championship game with the down and distance. Sorry, not going to rely on a table crew to keep that out of the outcome.

Originally Posted by pizanno

Since this crew was counting the score anyways, it would've done no harm to ask the home shot clock timer, "did you see the shot hit the rim?".

If the timer says "yes" or "i'm not sure", then they score the try and game over just like they did anyways.

However, if the timer says "absoultely not", then the crew can cancel score, award visitors the ball with ~1.8-2.3 on the clock and have a positive sportsmanship/integrity story to share.

I've been bailed out many times by my table crews (reporting wrong #, not seeing ball go in basket, shot clock memory) many in favor of the visitors. I'll continue to lean on those I trust when I make my next mistake.

And as usually you missed the point if you think this is about trusting them for the reasons you suggest.

Peace

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

And wasn't this an NCAA game? Washington U, as in University? Doesn't NCAA have replay? Or is that for D1 only?

As others have mentioned, NCAA officials can only use replay if there is a court side monitor. However, it's not clear that this play would be reviewable even if a monitor were available.

Rule 2-13.5.c says: The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as: Determine whether a violation occurred except in 2-13.3.a.2.

And 2-13.3.a.2 says: Officials shall use such available equipment in the following situations: When there is a reading of zeros on the game clock at the end of any period, after making a call on the playing court, and when necessary to determine the outcome of the game in the following situations: Determine whether a shot-clock violation occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock.

So, if the issue was whether the ball hit the rim, the monitor may not be used. It also seems that the intent of 2-13.3.a.2 is a situation where the shot-clock violation occurs so near the end of the game so that there is a doubt as to which occurred first, which is also not the case here.

One odd thing here -- the LED lights usually don't light up when the shot-clock runs down to 0. (Do they?) Why did they light up in this situation?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Lotto

One odd thing here -- the LED lights usually don't light up when the shot-clock runs down to 0. (Do they?) Why did they light up in this situation?

It depends on the setup, of course, but they light up in most of the NCAA games I do.

[JugglingReferee]

So back on topic a bit....


At camp we were taught that if the T has the shot attempt, then the C has primary on the ball hitting the rim, and BI/GT. Is that still philosophy used?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

So back on topic a bit....


At camp we were taught that if the T has the shot attempt, then the C has primary on the ball hitting the rim, and BI/GT. Is that still philosophy used?

Kinda. But the T under the right circumstances can follow the ball if they do not have any chance for realistic contact on a shot. But in this case the L could have seen the ball not hit the rim either. Any official can call a shot clock violation, at least on the side I do they can.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Kinda. But the T under the right circumstances can follow the ball if they do not have any chance for realistic contact on a shot. But in this case the L could have seen the ball not hit the rim either. Any official can call a shot clock violation, at least on the side I do they can.

Peace

Half our games have a SC and both officials call the SC violation, too.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Lotto

As others have mentioned, NCAA officials can only use replay if there is a court side monitor. However, it's not clear that this play would be reviewable even if a monitor were available.

Rule 2-13.5.c says: The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as: Determine whether a violation occurred except in 2-13.3.a.2.

And 2-13.3.a.2 says: Officials shall use such available equipment in the following situations: When there is a reading of zeros on the game clock at the end of any period, after making a call on the playing court, and when necessary to determine the outcome of the game in the following situations: Determine whether a shot-clock violation occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock.

So, if the issue was whether the ball hit the rim, the monitor may not be used. It also seems that the intent of 2-13.3.a.2 is a situation where the shot-clock violation occurs so near the end of the game so that there is a doubt as to which occurred first, which is also not the case here.

One odd thing here -- the LED lights usually don't light up when the shot-clock runs down to 0. (Do they?) Why did they light up in this situation?

They could have reviewed if the shot by the girl who rebounded the airball was released prior to the shot clock expiring. (if they had a monitor)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Lotto

As others have mentioned, NCAA officials can only use replay if there is a court side monitor. However, it's not clear that this play would be reviewable even if a monitor were available.

Rule 2-13.5.c says: The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as: Determine whether a violation occurred except in 2-13.3.a.2.

And 2-13.3.a.2 says: Officials shall use such available equipment in the following situations: When there is a reading of zeros on the game clock at the end of any period, after making a call on the playing court, and when necessary to determine the outcome of the game in the following situations: Determine whether a shot-clock violation occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock.

So, if the issue was whether the ball hit the rim, the monitor may not be used. It also seems that the intent of 2-13.3.a.2 is a situation where the shot-clock violation occurs so near the end of the game so that there is a doubt as to which occurred first, which is also not the case here.

One odd thing here -- the LED lights usually don't light up when the shot-clock runs down to 0. (Do they?) Why did they light up in this situation?

It's clear: the crew wouldn't have been able to use the monitor in this situation to deal with the shot-clock issue. A fellow official of mine e-mailed Debbie Williamson from the NCAA and she said it appeared the crew judged there was no shot-clock violation twice: once when the play happened and once again when they huddled after time expired.

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's clear: the crew wouldn't have been able to use the monitor in this situation to deal with the shot-clock issue. A fellow official of mine e-mailed Debbie Williamson from the NCAA and she said it appeared the crew judged there was no shot-clock violation twice: once when the play happened and once again when they huddled after time expired.

I have yet to speak with the official directly, but I worked a game this past weekend where this play came up in discussion. One of my partners from Saturday said that he spoke with the trail on this play, and said that he was "beating himself up" over this play. My partner said that the trail said that he had no angle on whether or not the shot hit the rim due to the fact that he was watching the shooter come back to the floor after taking her shot.

He also said that when they got together they were discussing two things: whether the original shot hit the rim, and whether the final shot was before the final horn. Then he said that when they pulled the coaches together, they explained the situation to them (much like you can see from the video).

Here's the kicker though... the trail on the play said that the visiting coach never even asked whether or not the original shot hit the rim! That was never in question from the coaches. They were only worried about the last shot leaving the shooter's hands before the final horn.

In my opinion, the C HAS to have an idea as to whether the shot hits the rim or not. The L can have some idea, but I'm not putting that on him...

Like I said, I'm hearing this second-hand, but it came from a very reliable source... and I will be working with one of the officials on this game this coming Thursday. If I find anything else out, I will be sure to let you all know.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

In my opinion, the C HAS to have an idea as to whether the shot hits the rim or not. The L can have some idea, but I'm not putting that on him...

We had a similar play in our game on Friday, but it was near the end of the first half, and in a blowout. I was L. The first shot, taken from the outside clearly missed the rim. The offense got the rebound and put up a lay-up. I assumed (yeah, I know) that it hit the rim, but it didn't. Horn went off. C knew that it was a shot clock violation, I knew the time that should be left, and we finished the 3.6 (iirc) seconds of the half.

We've all not know for sure whether a shot hit the rim when it's taken with, say, 15 seconds left. But, the outside officials need to get it when the shot is taken with the clock about to expire.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

I have yet to speak with the official directly, but I worked a game this past weekend where this play came up in discussion. One of my partners from Saturday said that he spoke with the trail on this play, and said that he was "beating himself up" over this play. My partner said that the trail said that he had no angle on whether or not the shot hit the rim due to the fact that he was watching the shooter come back to the floor after taking her shot.

He also said that when they got together they were discussing two things: whether the original shot hit the rim, and whether the final shot was before the final horn. Then he said that when they pulled the coaches together, they explained the situation to them (much like you can see from the video).

Here's the kicker though... the trail on the play said that the visiting coach never even asked whether or not the original shot hit the rim! That was never in question from the coaches. They were only worried about the last shot leaving the shooter's hands before the final horn.

In my opinion, the C HAS to have an idea as to whether the shot hits the rim or not. The L can have some idea, but I'm not putting that on him...

Like I said, I'm hearing this second-hand, but it came from a very reliable source... and I will be working with one of the officials on this game this coming Thursday. If I find anything else out, I will be sure to let you all know.

Regardless of what was discussed when the coaches were summoned, the visiting coach certainly was questioning the lack of the shot clock violation during the officials' pow-wow.

[Referee24.7]

Bottom line, its a crew error and someone (anyone -- lead, trail, center), has to get that, and anyone who gets that is a GAME-SAVER. . .

That's really, really bad