Free timeout in Ohio St.-Arizona game

[Raymond]

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

[JetMetFan]

The scenario has been mentioned in at least one other thread (by me). I think the NCAAM rules committee will probably talk about it during the summer but there may be little chance of doing anything.

My suggestion was not allowing teams to huddle with their coach - or, as I just thought of now, go to their bench areas - during monitor reviews.

[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.

If they stopped the clock on their own, then it is on them. When a team is out of timeouts, I think we have to do everything on in our power to not have a stoppage that is equivilent to a time out.

Could you image Thad Motta's response if Arizona would have hit a three after the stoppage?

[Raymond]

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.

If they stopped the clock on their own, then it is on them. When a team is out of timeouts, I think we have to do everything on in our power to not have a stoppage that is equivilent to a time out.

Could you image Thad Motta's response if Arizona would have hit a three after the stoppage?

Clock stops anyway on all made baskets in the final 1:00 of the 2nd half and OT.

Now THAT'S a rule I would like NFHS to adopt long before they consider adopting a shot clock.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Clock stops anyway on all made baskets in the final 1:00 of the 2nd half and OT.

Now THAT'S a rule I would like NFHS to adopt long before they consider adopting a shot clock.

You must have better timekeepers in your HS games than we do around here. I can envision all kinds of messes if timekeepers were supposed to stop the clock after all made baskets in the last minute of a HS game.

[bainsey]

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.

Bogus, no. Flawed? Certainly.

Let's not pretend both teams get the "time out," as the team on offense in this situation clearly gets an advantage with the stoppage. If we should trust our partners, shouldn't that extend to the timekeeper, too, especially in a NCAA D-I tournament game?

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Bogus, no. Flawed? Certainly.

Let's not pretend both teams get the "time out," as the team on offense in this situation clearly gets an advantage with the stoppage. If we should trust our partners, shouldn't that extend to the timekeeper, too, especially in a NCAA D-I tournament game?

This. Arizona had run themselves out of time-outs. OSU had not--but they sure weren't going to use one in that situation.

I'm not sure how to resolve the "check the clock" stoppage either, but I'd be surprised if that scenario isn't at least revisited by the rules committee. It was a major advantage to Arizona last night.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

This. Arizona had run themselves out of time-outs. OSU had not--but they sure weren't going to use one in that situation.

I'm not sure how to resolve the "check the clock" stoppage either, but I'd be surprised if that scenario isn't at least revisited by the rules committee. It was a major advantage to Arizona last night.

It is a judgment call by the officials whether or not they need to go to the monitor. I don't see what the rules committee can do to legislate judgment.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It is a judgment call by the officials whether or not they need to go to the monitor. I don't see what the rules committee can do to legislate judgment.

No, but they could legislate that no substitutes can take place in this instance. Butler had one guy who's four-year role was to throw full-length inbound passes. Never played otherwise. Nice weapon to have, but in last night's game wouldn't have been available without the monitor check (or a quick transfer to Arizona, for that matter).

It wouldn't be much, but it's something.

[blindzebra]

It actually looked like the AZ player going to do the throw in asked for a TO and the monitor was a way to not have a Chris Weber moment.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

No, but they could legislate that no substitutes can take place in this instance. Butler had one guy who's four-year role was to throw full-length inbound passes. Never played otherwise. Nice weapon to have, but in last night's game wouldn't have been available without the monitor check (or a quick transfer to Arizona, for that matter).

It wouldn't be much, but it's something.

Yes, they could re-write the rule to match the NCAA-W rule about subs in the last minute after a made basket. But it won't stop the reviews that occur and the teams gathering at their benches during this time frame.

[JRutledge]

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.

If they stopped the clock on their own, then it is on them. When a team is out of timeouts, I think we have to do everything on in our power to not have a stoppage that is equivilent to a time out.

Could you image Thad Motta's response if Arizona would have hit a three after the stoppage?

Then he should have drawn up a better defense. No one is caught by surprise at that point. Shame on a coach that cannot talk to his team and figure out what to do in their favor.

Peace

[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.

[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