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?

An alert (new) Team A player should have ran into a substitute on the court!

An "alert""smart"savvy" player should have seen that and throw the inbounds off a bench player. Poor coaching in my opinion. I would have told my players in the event of them scoring late … bring the ball inbounds on UNC bench side and find a player celebrating and run into them:D

It should be pre-gamed. :)

Watching this tournament I have learned one big thing. Coaches (or players) really aren't that smart. The sheer number of coaches I see coaching and several feet on the court leads to me think that if I were a coach I would have a play where a player of mine runs right into the coach. Fall, over, make a scene, force the T.

So many times the opposing players didn't even think of doing this. There is no way the officials cannot call a T if something like that were to happen. Easy 2 points plus possession.

If only coaches saw fit to spend some of their limited coaching minutes addressing a situation that will likely never happen.

are you being serious? :confused:

Unless, of course, the ref decides that your player went out his way to run into the coach and Ts him up for unsporting behavior, so you lose the ball and 2 points and pick up a player & team foul . . . seems to me that the coaches are actually smart enought to be having their players focus on actually playing the game instead of being overly cute.

The onus is on the coach to not be on the court...hard to defend a coach if he's clearly on the court.

If coaches and bench personnel are on the court, the onus is entirely on them if a players runs into them, whether it's intentional or not.

In fact, it is supposed to be an automatic T if the coach is on the court and an official runs into him.

Frankly, if the coach is on the court, it's on him to stay out of the way. If the play is designed so that the coach's position actually inhibits the offense, I'm getting the T on the coach. If the player intentionally runs into the coach, I may just pass on it, but I'm not getting the player for a T when all he's doing is running where he's allowed to run.

I there are two main reasons we don't see it.

1. The coach is paying more attention to his surroundings than we give him credit for, and he gets out of the way. In fact, most times, they aren't on the court when their team is on defense in front of them.
2. It's a bush-league move.

No comment, and you being confused makes sense.

I would generally agree with you, but watching the tourney I have seen teams in full court press where the team on defense was the bench in the backcourt and the coaches were easily a few feet onto the court instructing players.

It may be bush league in your opinion, in mine it's a heads up play. stay off the court coach.

Ok having read the NCAA language I now agree with the officials although I don't like the language in the rule although that decision is made by people a lot smarter than I.

I doubt it since there are so many coaches on the rules committee. :D

So wouldn't asking "what's the rule?" be smarter than saying "it's ridiculous" and "hopefully the site evaluator won't advance that crew?"

obviously since the play on choice is supported by rule I take back my comments about them not advancing.sometimes the toughest calls are the calls questioned by outsiders.

But as a coach am I really going to gamble that every referee will see it that way rather than consider it a doofus move rather than call something on the player for initiating? Or just no call it on the ground that the coach wasn't actually interfering with anything since it was player initiated? Sometimes it does make sense to just play the game. . . .

Gamble all you want. The rules don't support your point of view.

I think it's better to just play, but I'll tell you right now, if a player gets anywhere near a coach and the coach's presence on the floor in any way alters play, I'm calling the T. Chances are, if the coach is on the court when the ball is on that half, I'm reminding him to get back.

:confused::confused:I haven't offered any point of view about what the rules say or how they should be applied. I'm not arguing that a referee should call something on the player or should no-call it. I'm only pointing out that spending time working on a play designed in the hope that a referee will make a call that I have never seen made is a gamble and that coaches have better things to work on in practice.

(Personally, I think the leash on coaches roaming the court has gotten way too long and wouldn't mind seeing them get whacked -- but that doesn't mean I think that getting my player to run into the coach is a good coaching strategy. And I can't recall ever seeing a coach get whacked for being on the court if he was coaching rather than ranting at the ref.)

I did not say practice it .. but I can guarantee you that in my huddle I would mention it or hope one of my 32 assistants said something. With .6 left and the length of the floor to go what in the world else you gonna do?

I think the leash should be LONGER at the varsity HS level. Give them the same 28 feet college coaches get, for all I care.

If a player runs into a coach who is on the court, how can you justify ignoring it? The coach is totally in the wrong, period.

Actually saw this in a HS game my son was playing in (2010). Home team has the ball in their frontcourt, and my sons' teammate steals ball. Son takes off down the table side sideline and teammate throws long pass for son. Son should get an easy layup out of this when suddenly Home coach steps out onto court right about the 28 foot mark. Son (looking at the pass) never even sees Coach and runs straight into coach at full speed.

Coach is about 6'4" and probably 250. Son is 5'10" and about 170. Son goes down in a heap...ball goes oob on end line. Ref blows whistle and gives ball back to home team for an end line throw in. Coach steps back and sits down. Game has to be delayed while son is helped off (he was fine, just got the wind knocked out of him).

Knowing all 3 guys working the game (not our Assoc.), I waited a few days and then called the guy...asked him WTF??? about that play and he said that there was "no rule about a coach being run into by a player". At that point I just thanked him and hung up. Our coach sent the clip into the State and that coach was "sanctioned" by the State - whatever that means.

Long story - point is that this crap can and does happen.

Uh, I haven't justified it, I've said I don't think a coach can be confident it would be called that way making it a poor strategy . . . but just for giggles and laughs . . . coach is a step into the court near the half court line yelling at his defense to play zone. The clever center sees that away and knows that if the coach is on the court it is an automatic T on the coach, so he stops posting up and sprints 40' toward the unsuspecting coach, play reaching the coach just as he is turning around to step off the court, smashing the coach back into the chair . . . T on the coach?!?!? . . .

I'm gonna say no. Anybody that would consider this "strategy" would probably also try the old "send our worst player to pick a fight with their best player" trick.