NCAA-W: Ohio State vs North Carolina End of Game Bench Players (Video)
 

Can someone pull the end of the Ohio State/NC game? Carolina player hits bucket with 0.6 on clock.Players on the floor from Carolina celebrating the ball is inbounded and Ohio State throws up a half court shot and misses.Game over.

End of game bench players
 

I was flipping channels and on Sportscenter (or something) saw the analysis of the end of a women's game, NC and somebody, I think. NC hit a shot with
.6 on the clock. The other team had a timeout but didn't use it, simply inbounded and heaved, and it was over. Trouble is, meanwhile between the made shot and the inbound, apparently several NC team members ran onto the court from the bench. Question was asked "Why wasn't it a technical?" Kara Lawson (right?) answered matter-of-factly that it was not a technical since the continuous flow of the game was not interrupted. If one of the bench personnel had run into an opponent or something, technical, but, no harm, no foul.

????

Does ANY rule set have this stipulation?

Bench personnel may do cartwheels on the division line during a live ball so long as the "continuous flow of the game" is not interrupted.

I think the NCAA has essentially stated as much in this situation.

2H UNC J. Cherry made Jumper. - ESPN Video - ESPN

That is the ESPN link to the end of the game.

Didn't see it, but the description by jar in post 2 is at least approximately correct for NCAAW.

It's ridiculous and I'm not a fan of either side-they brought the ball in after the make with players on the floor for UNC.how is that allowed? hopefully the site evaluator won't advance that crew to the next rd.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CyV-i8B-dMk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why do you think the officials should get reprimanded?

Here's the NCAAW Case, with emphasis added:

A.R. 253. Team B leads, 67-66. A1’s two-point try for goal is successful, but
there is no indication that time has expired. Assuming that the successful try
was a game-ending and winning goal:
(1) Bench personnel from Team A; or
(2) Fans from Team A go onto the playing court to celebrate.
RULING: When the celebration causes a delay by preventing the
ball from being promptly made live or prevents continuous play:
One bench technical foul shall be assessed to the offending team
and counts toward the team foul total. This technical foul is also
charged indirectly to the head coach and counts toward the coach’s
ejection.
(2) An administrative technical foul shall be assessed to the offending
team. This administrative technical foul does not apply to the team
foul total.
Any player from Team B shall attempt the two free throws and play
shall resume at the point of interruption. When the celebration does
not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored.
(Rule 10-2.8.d and Penalty and 10-4.7 and Penalty)

It seems to me that the play was handled properly.

I think a decent case could be argued that the sheer mass of players coming off the bench essentially cut off half the court to the dribbler and DID affect continuous play. In any case, shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be given to the offended team?

no

There was 0.6 left in the game, there is no time to dribble AND shoot.

No chance this is a T.

For anyone interested, the crew was Joe Vaszily, Mark Zentz, and Rachelle Jones. (APG–the first crew for you to add to the women's NCAA thread :D)

they did talk abut it
 

At 28 seconds into the clip you can see the officials huddling at half court, I would bet they are talking about this and decided to pass.

While I think a no call is supported by rule, I think there were too many players on the court and they could have issued the "T" within the rules as well. I may be wrong, but I would have issued the "T".

absolutely and probably moot by how quickly they inbounded...but if she tried to look long, an entire half of the court was taken away by the bench mob pushing the action to the far side. I can see no T in this case - but just a very slight variation or delay in inbounding, and it seems like it could easily go the other way. And I don't think it would be egregious to call it even in this case.

As an FYI, is the ruling/rule the same in NCAAM?