by rule, yes.

So B1 is defending A1 and gets screened by A2. To facilitate the screen, A1 runs wide enough around both players that he ends up going OOB. I can't verify he was OOB, but based on the fact that a D1 official called this, I have to assume it fit the letter of the rule. The facts we can verify on tape seem to confirm the spirit as well.

But he won't be back in the league because some anonymous poster here says so. QED.

Well then, never mind.

Funny thing is, if we cared enough, we could probably verify when he's shown to be wrong.

Colgate recap: "The Bison then took a timeout to draw up a play with 21 seconds remaining. Unfortunately for the host team, during their next possession a Bison player ran out of bounds under the hoop and then was the first player to touch the ball thus committing a turnover."

Bucknell recap: "After a timeout, the Bison turned it over on a rarely seen call. Kaspar delivered a bounce pass to Frazier out near the top of the key, but the official underneath the basket blew the play dead and ruled that Frazier had stepped out of bounds on his cut along the baseline. That gave Colgate the ball back with 12.5 seconds left, and Tillotson swished a jumper from the right elbow to put the Raiders ahead with 1.1 seconds left. Bucknell’s long inbounds pass was broken up as time expired."

The sad thing is that none of these officials have more than 10 D1 games in this season based on a quick StatSheet search -- all in smaller conferences -- and it wouldn't shock me in the least bit if our anonymous poster isn't correct

I don't want to criticize the ref because I can't see the angle. And the screens may have been set too close to the baseline so the offensive player ran out. But...either that is a great call or a horrible one in the situation. I saw a college game on Saturday where there were repeated plays where the offense was running out on those baseline screens. Those things happen and refs and players get used to it. Maybe it wasn't as blatant as this one possibly was, but this call was very interesting. To me it doesn't look bad, but maybe there was a warning about it and he could have went out without contact. we just don't have the angle. I don't want to bother watching the game but I'm sure that is a call the supervisors will want to get an explanation for. Despite the rocky start with the OP this ended up being an intriguing video.

I work in conferences with 2 of those officials, I'm sure they'll be fine.

you need to study the college rule better, then pay attention to when it applies.

I watched some of the game -- they looked rock solid.

I can't say what went on before that call. And I can't say how blatant it was. I think it is a very valid point though to make that players have done very similar moves and not been called for a violation. This one was. I'm not saying it was an incorrect call. It might be 100% right on and a great call. I just would be understanding of the coach and players' point of view on the wrong end of this call especially if they had been doing it either earlier in the game or in previous ones without it being called.

Doing what before in the game?

Is anyone here surprised that the supervisor, essentially, threw the official under the bus? He played the "veteran official" card even though he wasn't even on the court.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index...bucknell-.html

I wonder what John Adams would feel about this.

I don't trust the context of the interviewer's question. Who knows at what part of the conversation that question was asked.

"We have 890-some referees and they see that. At whatever level of ability they are, they have to process that and say, 'OK, if I see that, what am I going to do with it?'"

Greenwood's quotes don't make him look very good here, regardless of context. And the denigration of "Saturday night specials" in the article is the equivalent of me pointing out that these games are D1 in name only.

Also, note that the same violation was called earlier in the game. There's the warning that Greenwood waxes poetic about.

I don't see that as a negative statement. That how he processes plays. Greenwood is very much an "official's" supervisor. He backed his officials in the big Cincy/Xavier fight when, IMO, there were a few mistakes made by the officials leading up to, and during, the incident. He also backed his officials in the A10 championship game a few years ago that ended in multiple technical fouls.

I think you are reading way too much into the isolated quotes in the article. Again, we don't know the context of the statements as they relate to the flow and sequence of questions from the interviewer.