Free timeout in Ohio St.-Arizona game

[kape]

Does this rule need to be addressed?

After Ohio State's 3-pointer with 2.0 seconds left, the officials checked the monitor to make sure the time left was correct. They couldn't have been reviewing whether it was a 3 -- the shooter was nowhere near the line -- and the time was pretty much right, too.

But this gave Arizona, which was out of timeouts, a free timeout to set up a play. The officials wound up putting 0.1 seconds back, making it 2.1 seconds left in the game.

This happened in the Marquette game, too, helping Marquette win.

[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.

[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

[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.