Terrible lack of awareness

[Scrapper1]

This is what I would term a "bad miss"

Let me throw this out there. Would you consider asking the timer and scorer what they saw on the play? If they both agree that it should have been a shot clock violation, can you then correct it, based on erroneously awarding a score?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is what I would term a "bad miss"

Let me throw this out there. Would you consider asking the timer and scorer what they saw on the play? If they both agree that it should have been a shot clock violation, can you then correct it, based on erroneously awarding a score?

They didn't erroneously award a score: the team scored a basket worth 2 points. They erroneously failed to call a violation, which is not a CE.

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mbyron

They didn't erroneously award a score: the team scored a basket worth 2 points. They erroneously failed to call a violation, which is not a CE.

Jeez, it only took you 4 minutes to kill all the fun!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Jeez, it only took you 4 minutes to kill all the fun!

Fun?

[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)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not even every D1 game has a monitor.

Also, I don't think they based the shot clock non-violation on the jump shot hitting the rim, I think they judged the rebounder to have released her shot in time. She didn't, but that weak shot clock horn sure doesn't help.

If you look at the video counter the throw-in was caught at 0:09 and the rebounder released her shot just as the counter changed from 0:19 to 0:20.

Now that I've re-viewed the video kinda hard to even give them this out as the light for the shot clock violation clearly came on before she caught the rebound of the airball.

[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