NCAAW Cases

[bob jenkins]

A.R. 18. When may a scorer signal the officials by sounding the horn?
RULING: When the scorer desires to call attention to a player who
is illegally in the game, the scorer may signal the official when the
ball is in control of that player’s team or when the ball becomes
dead. When it is for a substitution, the scorer may signal when the
next dead ball occurs or when the offending team has team control.
When it is for conferring with an official, the scorer may signal
when the ball is dead. When the scorer signals while the ball is live,
the official shall ignore the signal when a scoring play is in progress.

That part in red doesn't seem right to me. I only noticed because the case had been slightly revised. The same sentence is in last year's book (AR 17)

A.R. 208. Early in the second period, Team A inbounds the ball after a
violation and neither the shot clock nor game clock is started. Team A
dribbles and is under pressure in their back court. When officials realize that
neither clock is running, play is stopped. After consulting with table officials,
it is determined that Team A has had the ball for 10 consecutive seconds in
their back court.
RULING: The officials shall correct the timing mistake by placing
the correct time on the game clock as to when the 10-second back
court violation occurred and shall award the ball to Team B at a spot
nearest to where play was stopped to correct the timing mistake.
(Rule 9-11, 5-12.1, 5-12.4, A.R. 121 and 122)

This is a new ruling this year. Three questions: (1) How does the table determine that more than 10 seconds occurred (esp if there's no replay)? (2) What do we do if the table doesn't know? (3) The ruling seems inconsistent with the other new rulings that do not allow using the game clock to determine a violation (in those cases, the shot clock was off)

[Matt S.]

Bob, I agree with you on the first part. It either needs to be an ILLEGAL substitution, or the final eight words of the sentence need to be omitted.

As far as the new ruling goes, my guess is that it came up in a DI game with a monitor, which is why it made the casebook. I agree, the table isn't counting to ten. The way I read that case play, they want the officials to consult the table (all available resources) before making a timing correction. But in practice, there's no way I'm getting 'sold' by the table to call a violation unless my crew is 100% certain we got to 10.

[JetMetFan]

I'm using the "Ask Jon a Question" area on the Central Hub to find out about AR 208. That one doesn't seem right.

[JetMetFan]

And the answers...(also available on NCAAW Central Hub)

In AR 18, you make a valid observation and I will make note of it for next year's case book. (I said it should be "illegal" substitution)

For AR 208, if by conferring with the table officials, the game officials are able to determine how much time elapsed from the throw-in being legally touched on the playing court to the stoppage of play by the official and that amount of time is greater than 10 seconds, then the violation is penalized and the game clock shall be set to the time that the violation occurred (had the game clock been running). If this game is being played with a courtside monitor, and the monitor review brings the officials to the same conclusion (a 10-second violation occurred), they will adjudicate it the same way: penalize the violation and put the correct time on the game clock relative to when the violation would have occurred had the clock been properly started. (I asked how is anyone supposed to figure out the elapsed time if the clocks didn't start)

Thanks for writing. Glad study groups are looking at things closely.

So with AR 208 the main word in there is the first "if." If it can be figured out then you adjudicate it. If you can't, you don't.

[Matt S.]

Thanks for checking with Jon. This was a test question, which I took last night. Not sure if I missed it or not...let's just say there were more than a few poorly worded questions and I'm not happy with my score.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

And the answers...(also available on NCAAW Central Hub)

In AR 18, you make a valid observation and I will make note of it for next year's case book. (I said it should be "illegal" substitution)

For AR 208, if by conferring with the table officials, the game officials are able to determine how much time elapsed from the throw-in being legally touched on the playing court to the stoppage of play by the official and that amount of time is greater than 10 seconds, then the violation is penalized and the game clock shall be set to the time that the violation occurred (had the game clock been running). If this game is being played with a courtside monitor, and the monitor review brings the officials to the same conclusion (a 10-second violation occurred), they will adjudicate it the same way: penalize the violation and put the correct time on the game clock relative to when the violation would have occurred had the clock been properly started. (I asked how is anyone supposed to figure out the elapsed time if the clocks didn't start)

Thanks for writing. Glad study groups are looking at things closely.

So with AR 208 the main word in there is the first "if." If it can be figured out then you adjudicate it. If you can't, you don't.

Thanks for asking. I still don't understand how the AR208 ruling is consistent with the other rulings in that section. For example, if the clock is at 29, properly starts, runs to 18 -- we just chalk it up to an official's error. Since we can determine that it was more than 10, why don't we reset with a violation, like we do in AR208?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thanks for asking. I still don't understand how the AR208 ruling is consistent with the other rulings in that section. For example, if the clock is at 29, properly starts, runs to 18 -- we just chalk it up to an official's error. Since we can determine that it was more than 10, why don't we reset with a violation, like we do in AR208?

Without asking Jon again I would say AR 208 is a timing error. The other example - pardon the grammar - is an "us" error for not calling the violation, just as it would be if we saw a travel but didn't put a whistle on it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

Thanks for checking with Jon. This was a test question, which I took last night. Not sure if I missed it or not...let's just say there were more than a few poorly worded questions and I'm not happy with my score.

If you and JetMetFan (and others) want to join me to bounce test questions off each other, PM me. (I'll be out this weekend, so don't expect an immediate response.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Thanks for asking. I still don't understand how the AR208 ruling is consistent with the other rulings in that section. For example, if the clock is at 29, properly starts, runs to 18 -- we just chalk it up to an official's error. Since we can determine that it was more than 10, why don't we reset with a violation, like we do in AR208?

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Without asking Jon again I would say AR 208 is a timing error. The other example - pardon the grammar - is an "us" error for not calling the violation, just as it would be if we saw a travel but didn't put a whistle on it.

On the men's side, we are to retroactively correct such missed 10 second violations and put the correct time back on the clock.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you and JetMetFan (and others) want to join me to bounce test questions off each other, PM me. (I'll be out this weekend, so don't expect an immediate response.)

Absolutely, Bob... I'll be in touch.