![]() |
Quote:
Hadn't thought about it that way. I think you're right. (This is what a one-year leave of absence from the court gets me!) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The contact was after the ball had already been touched and was headed oob and was therefore incidental. No foul and possession should have gone to UNCA. I agree though that the habit of ignoring a foul and awarding possession is a dying practice and we should just call the foul. IMO we can still get away with doing this occassionally on marginal rebounding contact where both players come close to touching the ball and we award the ball to the team whose player may have been slightly disadvantaged by contact from behind. But this has become a dangerous practice, especially with the NBA now making oob calls reviewable at the end of games. They basically have to call the foul now if they feel the contact is what caused the player to not be able to secure possession. |
Does it look like C has a foul call on OOB play? Has arm up, what else would it be? Not his line call.
Sorry if already discussed, haven't read through entire thread |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And in your hypothetical, in a game with a monitor, you would be wrong. You go to the monitor to see if the foul occurred before the expiration of time. If it occurred before the expiration of time, then any made basket would count along with the the remaining free throws. If the foul happened after time expired, no basket nor FTs. In a game with replay, there's no way to award FTs like you would suggest. ***** Went and looked at the case book play and it appears you may be right MTD, and if that's so, that's a godawful use of replay and don't understand the logic behind the case book play. |
Quote:
APG: I didn't mean "go to the monitor to determine if the foul occurred before or after the expiration of time", I meant to see if the shot was released before the Shot Clock had expired and if time should be put back on the clock. I am shooting FTs in this situation no matter what. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
If PTS had been used and functioning properly, the clocks--both of them--would have stopped on the whistle. Replays show that when Corbett hit the whistle there was one second remaining on the shot clock. So the SC never would have hit zero, and no SC violation would or even could have been called. Basket would have counted, etc. I've spent a bunch of time studying the applicable rules and ARs, and this thing is simply not totally clear. That doesn't mean that there aren't some arguments that are better than others. But for sure there are no directly applicable casebook plays which would clarify the entire situation (including the amount of time to be put back on the clock following the review). One mistake that does seem clear is the amount of time that was put back on the clock. There was a 1.6 second difference between GC and SC at the beginning of the last Syracuse possession. Why, then, would the crew put 1.4 on the clock following the review? Lastly (for the moment), the casebook needs to be clarified. AR 143 is what I think screwed everybody up yesterday, but it doesn't explicitly mention how it fits in with 13.2(c). |
Quote:
Second, if the foul occurs prior to the shot clock expiring, the shot clock is of no consequence. The SC and game clock should stop on the whistle. The foul occurred just as the shooter started the habitual motion with his arms going up. NO question it occurred before the SC expired. |
Quote:
|
You have got to be kidding me!!! How can that Notre Dame player be that stupid??? This just happened yesterday!!!
|
Whoever was that official with the lane violation call, the FF1, and the OOB nailed the end of the game!
How could that player go in early?! |
Quote:
Is that college rule or when it hits? Confusing to listen to the announcers Thanks David |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45pm. |