BYU / OLE MISS Held Ball vs 10 Second Violation (Video)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The shot clock didn't start on time...it was delayed just a bit after blue clearly had control after the rebound.

However, it should not have been a shot clock violation as White #2 obtained control for a moment before the held ball occurred...changing possession and resetting the shot clock.

Camron is correct. The defense actually possessed the ball twice in this sequence. The first time near the division line and the second in the FT lane just before the held ball. The shot clock should have reset for the frontcourt possession by white (Ole Miss) making a 10-second violation impossible.

If the AP arrow favored BYU, then a full reset to 35 prior to the administration of the throw-in was warranted.

I have possession gained by the defense at 4:37 and 4:32. Either one would be enough to negate the potential backcourt violation.

[bob jenkins]

IF the officials do not judge that white had possession (and I agree that white did), then they need to decide whether the held ball occurred with 26 on the shot clock (but the clock continued to run in error) and reset it to that, or that it happened with 25 and call the violation.

So, given the multiple possibilities -- what did they do?

[Blindolbat]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I have possession gained by the defense at 4:37 and 4:32. Either one would be enough to negate the potential backcourt violation.

ditto

[Raymond]

White obviously gained control of the ball.....then rolled over with the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Camron is correct. The defense actually possessed the ball twice in this sequence. The first time near the division line and the second in the FT lane just before the held ball. The shot clock should have reset for the frontcourt possession by white (Ole Miss) making a 10-second violation impossible.

If the AP arrow favored BYU, then a full reset to 35 prior to the administration of the throw-in was warranted.

I debated whether the action at the division line was enough for possession. It was close and I wouldn't argue against either position there, but the latter point, just before the held ball, was clear....thus the clock should have been reset for Ole Miss either way.

[chymechowder]

I didnt see the Trail doing a visible count. Is NCAA mechanic not to do a count--just to go off of the shot clock?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I didnt see the Trail doing a visible count. Is NCAA mechanic not to do a count--just to go off of the shot clock?

Yes, for a couple of seasons now, except when the shot clock is turned off.

[STFD]

Interesting play. I've got a 10s violation. Not sure if white had possession near the division line, but I would trust the shot clock operator here. On the action near the free throw line, I think the best choice is the violation. It's not clear that white had possession and if he did have control, I would bet that he's asking for a time out (although we can't see from the video) - seems kind of unfair to not grant white the timeout AND reset the shot clock. In any case, like others have said, we can't have a held ball with 25s on the SC. Plus, looking at the play subjectively, blue deserved a turnover here. Unless white clearly has control, we shouldn't have a reset.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by STFD

Interesting play. I've got a 10s violation. Not sure if white had possession near the division line, but I would trust the shot clock operator here. On the action near the free throw line, I think the best choice is the violation. It's not clear that white had possession and if he did have control, I would bet that he's asking for a time out (although we can't see from the video) - seems kind of unfair to not grant white the timeout AND reset the shot clock. In any case, like others have said, we can't have a held ball with 25s on the SC. Plus, looking at the play subjectively, blue deserved a turnover here. Unless white clearly has control, we shouldn't have a reset.

That's not up to the shot clock operator, though.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by STFD

Interesting play. I've got a 10s violation. Not sure if white had possession near the division line, but I would trust the shot clock operator here. On the action near the free throw line, I think the best choice is the violation. It's not clear that white had possession and if he did have control, I would bet that he's asking for a time out (although we can't see from the video) - seems kind of unfair to not grant white the timeout AND reset the shot clock. In any case, like others have said, we can't have a held ball with 25s on the SC. Plus, looking at the play subjectively, blue deserved a turnover here. Unless white clearly has control, we shouldn't have a reset.

Neither White nor Blue deserve anything on this play but the proper adjudication of team control rules. Ole Miss had the ball in their possession on 2 different occasions.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by STFD

It's not clear that white had possession and if he did have control, I would bet that he's asking for a time out (although we can't see from the video) - seems kind of unfair to not grant white the timeout AND reset the shot clock.

Assuming they would be asking for a timeout when there is no such evidence is not a good way to call the game. White had possession one time for sure and likely two time. The shot clock should have been reset. And the clock operator has the worst view of when to reset it in these types of plays. On shots, sure, they usually get it (but not always). In this case, I'm not trusting their opinion for anything.

[STFD]

I'm not suggesting we assume the TO request, just that we would likely see a request if the video showed the front side of this play. What I find interesting is that it's a gray area play that can be adjudicated in several reasonable ways. What's the "right" way? I'm still leaning toward a violation, but what do I know?