VA / Iowa
 

VA #4 is subbed for at 1:28 mark. Iowa throws ball in and is immediately fouled. Iowa going to the line and clock still shows 1:28. Official doesn't allow #4 back in. Granted clock still showed 1:28, but at least a tenth had to come off. Shouldn't his partners had stepped in?

The calling official (Shows) tried to wave them from the C before the 1st free throw. The new Trail decided he couldn't enter. Guess at that point he didn't want an open dispute played out on the court.

Didn't see the play, but was the foul before or after the ball was touched inbounds?

Even so, that doesn't automatically mean the clock should have counted down any, particularly when it was at a point where 10ths are not displayed.

I think the rule should be altered to not be based on the clock running but be based on the ball being both live and gaining inbounds status on a throwin or on a rebound of a FT. That should basically get the desired effect without linking it to the clock operation.

Did anyone catch what the altercation was between some members of the opposing coaching staffs at the beginning of one of the media time outs? Were players involved?

Didn't see any part of it but I heard the explanation by the announcer:


"This is what happens when a game is poorly officiated......"

I'll post it in the morning when I get home but my first thought is the situation was mishandled, mainly because the clock wasn't addressed.

all with 1:28 on the clock...
*foul on Iowa #25
*UVA #25 hits first FT
*two UVA players enter game for #1 and #4
*UVA #25 hits second FT
*Iowa inbounds ball
*foul on UVA #25 (ball was caught by Iowa #4, then the foul was commited)

At this point, IMO, they should have checked the monitor to see if any time should have run off. They were using PTS so I'm sure no one had a chance to trigger it. I know NCAA doesn't have the same rule as the NBA (minimum 0.3 runoff) in this regard but something had to run off because the player caught the ball and then was fouled. It's completely possible the clock would've stayed at 1:28 to the rest of the world but even if it dropped from 1:28.5 to 1:28.2 on the console at the table that's enough to get the players into the game.

I can't find an A.R. on the situation.

The rule says (I think) "clock started" not "time has run off".

The clock started (or should have). The player should have been allowed in, based on the descriptions here.

I only caught a glimpse of the altercation and didn't bother to rewind it last night. However, I believe there were two players the assistant coaches were trying to separate at the beginning of the time-out. The Iowa assistant coach (video coordinator according to the announcers) said something to the UVA assistant coach as he turned to walk away and the UVA assistant grabbed his arm and said something in return. If I were a betting man, I would put money on Iowa #25 and UVA #23 being the players, since those two were involved in two plays just before the media time-out. For those who didn't see it, the UVA player blocked the Iowa player's shot and then stumbled into the fallen shooter after returning to the floor. The Iowa player, on the floor, took exception. Then Iowa #25 gave his defender a two-hand shove on the ensuing in-bounds play.

It does say clock started but it doesn't give any leeway for a quick on/off situation where it never actually started even if it should have. It is simply based on the clock actually starting. I don't like that, but it is what it says.

Here's NCAA 3-4-1i

To me, the key there is "properly started." If the clock should have started and didn't, then there's a way to remedy that in a monitor game.

Here's the OP sequence...
 

I'll put in the other play in the thread if someone give me the time it took place.

BTW, since I can do frame by frame by my count it was 0.3 from the time the Iowa player touched the ball to when he was actually hit and 0.8 from the touch until the whistle.

<iframe width="512" height="288" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sltug_klt4s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If the clock doesn't run, but should have, then I'm letting the player in.

I think there was a case on that a while ago. Even if there wasn't, I'm going to pretend there was. ;)

I think the "properly started" phrase only covers the situation where the clock was inadvertently started...that doesn't let the player in. Even if you fix it, it wasn't actually properly started.

I do agree, however, that the spirit of the rule would be to let the player in.