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

This occurred towards end of game. They gave the ball back to the offensive team This play by definition needs to be a 10 sec backcourt violation. I look forward to the discussion on this play....

I agree. It would be a shot clock violation, if a held ball occurred in the frontcourt with 0 on the shot clock.
The principle is the same.

Edit: I'm basing this only on the information provided by the previous poster. I have not seen the play yet.

I look forward to less vague descriptions of when plays occur....


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cL1DavjMQek" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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?

ditto

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

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.

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.

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.

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.