Rules Question on strange D1 Ending (Video)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes it was a good call if the player goes out of bounds. It is a rule. And John Adams would want this called. You cannot see the player run out of bounds on the camera, but if he goes out of bounds to get an advantage, it should be called if he is the first to touch the ball during a pass. And yes it should be called in that situation. It probably was not even close either.

Peace

While we can't see if it was OOB directly, the spot, speed, and angle where we see him enter the video would strongly suggest he came from OOB.

...and I agree with your assessment.

[bob jenkins]

Assuming he was out of bounds, it's an easy and correct call.

I get it once or twice a season.

Note that the HS rule is different, and officials have differenct philosophies on how tightly to call it in HS.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Kend

It definitely did blow for exactly the reason I stated. The referee said so at the time, and the league also stated that was the reason after the game due to the many questions from the press and others. They cited the following as justification:

Rule 9. Section 4. Player Out of Bounds Art. 1.
A player who steps out of bounds under his own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation. a. A violation has not been committed when a player, who steps out of bounds as permitted by Rule 7-4.6.b, does not receive the pass along the end line from a teammate and is the first to touch the ball after his return to the playing court.


I am not sure the referee made a correct application of the above rule.

Since we cannot tell if the player was out of bounds or not from the video, I will assume that he did in fact go out of bounds while cutting across the endline. In that case, you are wrong. The official was exactly correct in his application of the rule. Further, this has been a POE from the NCAA-M coordinator of officials the entire season and has been highlighted multiple times in his weekly videos sent to NCAA-M officials.

[Kend]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not so sure that he has to be fouled. But if there is contact that helped bump him off a spot, then yes he might not be under his own volition. That being said, you do not get the benefit of the doubt if you go completely out of bounds without any contact. I bet this was a designed play and he ran around to create a screen.

Peace

Thanks. There was clearly contact. Can't be seen live. Can be seen when they show replay from different angle. League quoted the rule but apparently is not happy at all with the call at that point. No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game. I doubt you will see that official again.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Kend

Thanks. There was clearly contact. Can't be seen live. Can be seen when they show replay from different angle. League quoted the rule but apparently is not happy at all with the call at that point. No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game. I doubt you will see that official again.

Contact does not make this not a violation. There was no foul called. And if there was contact and the player purposely still went out of bounds, that is still a violation.

And this was addressed on the NCAA tape recently. So I doubt seriously he is going to have any problem working.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Kend

Thanks. There was clearly contact. Can't be seen live. Can be seen when they show replay from different angle. League quoted the rule but apparently is not happy at all with the call at that point. No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game. I doubt you will see that official again.

I doubt you know much about the rules and the application of said rules. The call looked right, no matter how you feel it should have gone.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Kend

Thanks. There was clearly contact. Can't be seen live. Can be seen when they show replay from different angle. League quoted the rule but apparently is not happy at all with the call at that point. No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game. I doubt you will see that official again.

Still waiting for a link to the statement made by the league.

"A dozen times" is nonsense hyperbole', and makes it hard to trust the veracity of your statements.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Contact does not make this not a violation.

Pretty sure it does. I've spoken with several college officials who have told me to try to find a way to say he was pushed out and only call this if there was clearly no contact causing the player to go OOB.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Pretty sure it does. I've spoken with several college officials who have told me to try to find a way to say he was pushed out and only call this if there was clearly no contact causing the player to go OOB.

I see no contact on this play. A1 runs around the pick, stepping OOB while B1 gets screened and ends up trailing the play.

Cannot trust the account given by kend one bit.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I see no contact on this play. A1 runs around the pick, stepping OOB while B1 gets screened and ends up trailing the play.

I can't tell from the angles we had but I'm fine with the call if there was no contact. I called it myself this year, and it left everyone in the gym thinking "WTF?"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Pretty sure it does. I've spoken with several college officials who have told me to try to find a way to say he was pushed out and only call this if there was clearly no contact causing the player to go OOB.

If there is no foul ruled on the player and incidental contact takes place, a player still can run somewhere they are not supposed to. It is no different than if a player goes to the end line on a drive and a legal defender has contact with them and they go out of bounds. We do not penalize (or at least I do not) if the defender or opponent was legal. So why would I need contact or not have contact to make this determination? If there is contact I will give anyone the benefit of stepping on the line, but this rule is not about stepping on the line. The rule is about running around a screen or running out of bounds to get to a place easier. If this player's teammate is setting a screen right near the line and this player goes around him, that is a violation.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Kend

Thanks. There was clearly contact. Can't be seen live. Can be seen when they show replay from different angle. League quoted the rule but apparently is not happy at all with the call at that point. No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game. I doubt you will see that official again.

I doubt we'll see you again after this weekend.

[Altor]

The white player in the post pointed at the recipient of the pass and looked at the official. He then started clapping as soon as the whistle blew. He knew what call to expect.

If this happened a dozen times before that without being called, I doubt that player would be asking for the call at that point in the game.

[mutantducky]

wow, that was a surprising call. But hard to see from the angle. I would be curious to see if the players were doing that during the game.
I think Jay Bilas head would have exploded.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kend

No advantage gained and it was ignored at least a dozen times earlier in the game.

Did you even watch it? There was a huge advantage gained. He was able to shake his defender and come back in bounds to get an open pass as a direct result of the path he took.