Marquette-Miami clip
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/R5dMAyqaMe8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The blind leading the blind
 

And the game commentators don't have a clue regarding the elements of that call. They immediately agreed that it was a backcourt violation.:(

Good post!

Miami was IN the game at the time and the REFS helped determine the outcome on that ONE call. It was all downhill from there, as soon thereafter Marquette built up a huge lead the Hurricanes just couldn't come back from the rest of the game (sarc). :rolleyes:

Wow. That's a big mistake of a pretty basic rule. No team or player control after the shot.

Does an official get dinged for an error like that? Has anyone noticed whether guys have been moving on when something like this occurs?

I was at this game and it was interesting watching everything as it happened just before a media timeout.

The C ran over to the calling official very quickly and they had a quick convo, whatever info the C brought was not enough for him to change the call, though it was obviously kicked.

The entire Miami coaching staff was waiting for an explanation, which was given, then Larranaga walked off in disgust.

That's what I saw on TV too, I was sure the C would've said something like "Hey, I didn't have any team control on that, are you sure?" and they would've fixed it. It's hard for me to imagine any reason why the call stood.

Thee is a case to be made that there was possession of the Miami player near half court. The problem is the angle does not help illustrate that fact. It looks like a miss but you cannot see if and when he might have had possession of the ball which is what would hinge on how good or bad this call was.

Peace

I don't see how that's possible even with the bad camera angle. The ball NEVER stopped moving at any point which would indicate posession before it's picked up in back court.

Not sure you can say the ball never stopped moving and that would not be the standard anyway. If the player had both hands on the ball, it could have been secured, for just a moment. I am just saying the calling official had a much better angle. I know if I was the official on the camera side I would not have ruled possession. But from the calling official's angle, maybe. I also do not think it is likely there was possession, just saying it was possible or I cannot rule it out in this case.

Peace

So, you're saying the player could have gathered the ball there...that quickly? That doesn't seem like your normal view. Doesn't the player have to have it in their hands for some amount of time before you consider them to be holding the ball?

Well when we have people claiming in other threads that a player in an instance gathered the ball so quickly after a dribble, why would that not be possible here? Then again I just raised the issue that there could have been possession, I am not buying that but I never see the ball when the player reaches over to get the ball. It is possible? Certainly it is, but not likely and looks like a miss to me on most accounts.

Peace

Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun ...
 

Who's in charge of the redundancy department?

I've had some miss my sarcasm before and wanted to ensure there was NO mistake this time! ;)

I've tried to go frame-by-frame on my cpu/editing program. There may have been a point right before #35 White runs into #4 White that #4 White managed to cradle the ball momentarily in his right hand. Again, I say may. He definitely never got two hands on it because #35 ran into him at the moment that would've happened. I was really hoping CBS would've had an endline view of this one heading into the break.

I just simply raised the issue that it is "possible" to come to that conclusion. I never said it was for sure, but the Trail saw something. Honestly I would like to get his take on what happened in his judgment because otherwise I am like most here, the kicked the call. And in these situations I want to be sure, not kind of sure.

Peace