Free timeout in Ohio St.-Arizona game

[Adam]

If the coaches want this rule changed, it'll get changed.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I am only a high school official but if the officials by rule have to stop the clock for .1 of a second to check the clock, then the rule is bogus.

I think that if they knew (somehow) in advance that the difference was only .1, they likely wouldn't have reviewed. They reviewed because, for whatever reason, there was some doubt. When they checked, turned out it was only off by .1. It's entirely possible that they could have checked, and found no error at all - it happens.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

If the coaches want this rule changed, it'll get changed.

Ding, Ding, Ding

[twocentsworth]

A rule "change" isn't necessary...a "modification" is.

If the officials determine that a game stoppage is necessary, in instances covered under the monitor review rules, the following should not be allowed to occur:
1) no substitutions shall be permitted; including any substitutes that have previously reported to the scorers' table that would have been allowed to enter the game at the next stoppage of play.

2) both teams are not allowed to confer with coach/bench personnel during the official review period; officials shall instruct players on the floor to move to the three-second area opposite of their benches as to prevent instructions to be relayed from the sideline (it is an unfair advantage for a team to benefit from this "officials timeout" when they do not have any timeouts remaining).

(not sure what an appropriate penalty should/would be if a team fails to comply with #2.....any thoughts?)

3) either team may request a time out, provided they have at least one remaining, after the game has been stopped by the officials for a monitor review of a previous play; as such, normal timeout rules would apply in this situation.

[JRutledge]

The only problem is on #2 they will still have the opportunity to talk to their teams if they are at the lane. It will just be a different level of conversation but they will still set stuff up. And the only penalty that would be reasonable would be giving a T and I really do not want to see that be an option for something involving a review.

Peace

[kape]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't know, Marquette won by 10 last night.

Yeah, I meant the Marquette-Davidson game last week.

"Yet even that might have worked out OK for the pride of the Southern Conference, given that the Eagles had no timeouts remaining to help draw up a winning play that would have to travel at least 60 feet.

But the officials decided the 5.5 seconds remaining at that time might not be right. They stopped the action to review the ball sailing out of bounds, eventually putting 6.7 seconds on the clock.

Marquette coach Buzz Williams understandably took advantage of the unexpected break to conduct an unofficial timeout, pulling his team together for at least two minutes.

"Unfair advantage," McKillop would declare later, but only after being asked about it. "Maybe [in that situation] they shouldn't let them huddle."

As if to fully support McKillop's stance on the importance of basically receiving a timeout the Eagles didn't have, Williams said, "It definitely helped. I would say it probably helped emotionally more than strategically. I mean, our guys knew what we were going to run, but it probably helped us to calm down some."

[Adam]

And again, the if enough coaches don't like the way this works, they'll change it. Otherwise, it's perfectly fair and equal.