UNC-Asheville/Syracuse End of 1st Half

[APG]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play #1: First, some of the posts in this thread questioned the use of PST. I thought that PST was used all throught the Tournament becuase it is used in just about every Division I game played during the regular season; and I think that the use or non-use of PST in this game has a bearing of how this play is handled. As an example: Let us assume that the Shot Clock is not a factor and only the Game Clock is a factor. If a player is fouled in the Act of Shooting before the Game Clock expires but the ball is not released before the Game Clock expires then the FG if successful will not count, and the Shooter will be awarded two or three FTs depending upon the type of FGA.

PTS or not doesn't not effect how this play should have be occurred. All PTS would have done is stop the clock in a timely fashion.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

PTS or not doesn't not effect how this play should have be occurred. All PTS would have done is stop the clock in a timely fashion.

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.

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.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

PTS or not doesn't not effect how this play should have be occurred. All PTS would have done is stop the clock in a timely fashion.

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.

Dissent.

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).