10 second violation

[diveonthefloor]

Can't find this posted elsewhere (mods please merge this if it is)

From the NCAA 2010-2011 rule book:

Section 10. (Men) 10-Second Violation
An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a
ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

Before I found this, my previous impression was the same as Elmore's and Patrick's last night. (OMG, I can't believe I thought Elmore was right???)

From reading the rule book, it sounds as if the correct call WAS indeed made. Are there any officials out there who can provide further clarification?

[PADukeMom]

I didn't have an issue with this call since it was correct. Tyler has to be more aware of time. He came close to doing it a second time towards the end of the game.

[jv001]

This was another call that Elmore kept talking about as the game was going on. Like you, I would love to know if we 're both looking at this rule correctly. If so, I wish I had waited to e-mail my elmore complaint to ESPN. Go Duke!

[airowe]

I didn't have an issue with this call since it was correct. Tyler has to be more aware of time. He came close to doing it a second time towards the end of the game.

He lost control of the ball, not track of time.

[gus]

Can't find this posted elsewhere (mods please merge this if it is)

From the NCAA 2010-2011 rule book:

Section 10. (Men) 10-Second Violation
An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a
ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

Before I found this, my previous impression was the same as Elmore's and Patrick's last night. (OMG, I can't believe I thought Elmore was right???)

From reading the rule book, it sounds as if the correct call WAS indeed made. Are there any officials out there who can provide further clarification?

I'm curious- what was Elmore's impression? What happened? (I unfortunately was not able to see the game)

[diveonthefloor]

I'm curious- what was Elmore's impression? What happened? (I unfortunately was not able to see the game)

TT had the ball in backcourt and made a long pass as the shot clock got to 26 second....the ball crossed half court and wasn't "Caught" by his Duke teammate until the clock had already reached 25 seconds.

The announcers and Clemson bench were surprised that a 10 sec violation wasn't called. So was I.

[jv001]

I'm curious- what was Elmore's impression? What happened? (I unfortunately was not able to see the game)

Elmore and Patrick both said the refs blew the call and Duke should have been called for the 10 second violation. Patrick even said that it wasn't close, when the replay indicated that if the announcers were correct it was touched in our front court in 11 seconds. Just another way of saying Duke get's all the calls. GoDuke!

[davekay1971]

TT had the ball in backcourt and made a long pass as the shot clock got to 26 second....the ball crossed half court and wasn't "Caught" by his Duke teammate until the clock had already reached 25 seconds.

The announcers and Clemson bench were surprised that a 10 sec violation wasn't called. So was I.

I was at the game and was surprised that it wasn't called. I was also surprised no foul was called on Nolan's drive to the basket early in the game when his head was nearly removed by a Clemson defender (Nolan was still working his neck around 30 seconds later at the other end of the court). Since I blessedly couldn't hear Elmore, could someone tell me exactly how much time Lenny spent discussing THAT missed call?

[HK Dukie]

They kept harping on this no call even though Clemson got possession right after this play.

How many other teams do you think they would have done repeated slow mo graphics to clamor that duke got a call.

Ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be nice just for once if we can listen to announcers who don't mention the refs a single time during the game?

[DukeUsul]

It is interesting to note that the officials count off the ten seconds themselves, using that same hand-slash motion they use to count off a 5-second inbounds timer or 5-seconds closely guarded. You can watch the official on that play count as the ball is coming upcourt. He had counted to 8 and was just counting 9 when the ball made it to the frontcourt. You can see he's counting slower than the game-clock, especially as he got near the end.

It seems to me that in the reality of the game, the officials frequently count a bit slower than "real" seconds on many of these types of situations. My hope is that if they do, that they are counting off consistently for both teams across all of these kinds of counts.

[jv001]

They kept harping on this no call even though Clemson got possession right after this play.

How many other teams do you think they would have done repeated slow mo graphics to clamor that duke got a call.

Ridiculous.

Wouldn't it be nice just for once if we can listen to announcers who don't mention the refs a single time during the game?

I agree it would be nice, but I can't think of another announcer that brings it up every Duke game that he announces. Now when Billy Packer was working the games he was just a bad as Elmore. One from twerpville and the other a Demon Deacon. Both so jealous it's almost funny. Go Duke!

[killerleft]

I was at the game and was surprised that it wasn't called. I was also surprised no foul was called on Nolan's drive to the basket early in the game when his head was nearly removed by a Clemson defender (Nolan was still working his neck around 30 seconds later at the other end of the court). Since I blessedly couldn't hear Elmore, could someone tell me exactly how much time Lenny spent discussing THAT missed call?

I don't know the rule, but saying the ball even passed the half-court line at the 25 sec. mark is being kind to Duke.

[DukeUsul]

Can't find this posted elsewhere (mods please merge this if it is)

From the NCAA 2010-2011 rule book:

Section 10. (Men) 10-Second Violation
An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a
ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

Before I found this, my previous impression was the same as Elmore's and Patrick's last night. (OMG, I can't believe I thought Elmore was right???)

From reading the rule book, it sounds as if the correct call WAS indeed made. Are there any officials out there who can provide further clarification?

Let's follow your line of thinking and see if the rules say anything about what "in his back court" means. Here's the definition:



Rule 4. Section 3. Art 3.
a. A ball that is in contact with a player or with the playing court shall
be in the back court when either the ball or the player (either player
when the ball is touching more than one) is touching the back court.
It shall be in the front court when neither the ball nor the player is
touching the back court.
b. A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains
the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the
playing court.
c. During a dribble from back court to front court, the ball shall be in
the front court when both feet of the dribbler and the ball touch the
playing court entirely in the front court.


So while the ball was in the air (even while it had passed the time line) it was still "in the back court" having retained its previous status. It's not "In the front court" until the player catches it and has both feet in the front court.

[Gewebe14]

Also, Nolan was called for an offensive foul with the next 2 seconds once they realized they might have screwed up the call.

[jv001]

Also, Nolan was called for an offensive foul with the next 2 seconds once they realized they might have screwed up the call.

This is a great point, as I said when Nolan was called for the foul. Make up call!!! Go Duke!

[wgl1228]

ESPN loves Duke for their ratings but thats it. Not all, but many of their on air commentators have an anti-Duke bias that is quite obvious. I know it has been discussed how Duke is the only team absent from Sports Center's introduction. (Aubern was immediately put up by the way.) Anyway I know I am not the only one noticing this.

[Wander]

They kept harping on this no call even though Clemson got possession right after this play.


Weirdly, we can make an even stronger statement here. The no-call on the 10 seconds was a bad call that benefit Clemson and hurt Duke. The reason is that Nolan Smith was called for an offensive foul immediately after - so instead of a Duke turnover, Clemson got both a Duke turnover and a Duke foul.

[Rudy]

Well, also they go by a hand count instead of watching the clock. Does the shot clock start only after the inbounds pass is made or does it start upon the made basket?

[dukee94]

Also, Nolan was called for an offensive foul with the next 2 seconds once they realized they might have screwed up the call.

Small correction, the offensive foul was on Tyler Thornton, not Nolan Smith.

[DukeUsul]

Well, also they go by a hand count instead of watching the clock. Does the shot clock start only after the inbounds pass is made or does it start upon the made basket?

The shot clock starts when the player on the court receiving the inbounds pass touches the ball.



Rule 2 Section 11 "Duties of Shot-clock Operator"
Art. 5. Start the timing device when a player inbounds legally touches or is
touched by the ball on a throw-in or when a team initially gains possession from
a jump ball, an unsuccessful try for goal or when possession is gained of a loose
ball after a jump ball or unsuccessful try for goal.

[-jk]

Well, also they go by a hand count instead of watching the clock. Does the shot clock start only after the inbounds pass is made or does it start upon the made basket?

Gaining control inbounds.

While the refs are allowed to look at the shot clock to decide, they usually use the hand count - which is almost always just a bit slower than the real clock. Watching the clock would take their eyes off the game...

-jk

[dukee94]

I don't know the rule, but saying the ball even passed the half-court line at the 25 sec. mark is being kind to Duke.

It's not being that kind, Kyle Singler actually received the pass on the other side of the line at the 25 second mark.

1884

[sporthenry]

It was a violation. As someone pointed out the rule, the ball was technically still @ TT's position until Singler got it. However, Singler had possession of the ball @25. But so that means what? The refs missed a second, I'm sure there are games where the refs miss it @ 24 or even 23 seconds.
And the call on TT pushing off was a joke. So it really is just terrible announcers not recognizing the situation. There was the make up call that Len wanted so much to point out.

[Gewebe14]

Wow that is the best picture on earth.

I think ESPN has been on a slight anti-duke kick lately because everyone else in the world is sick of Duke/UNC.

There was almost no hype for the first game (aired on ESPN) by historical standards and I know it's a huge complaint from Big-10 fans, etc.

[4decadedukie]

Does a ten-second violation occur in the following hypothetical situation:
a) A player on the team with the burden to get the ball across the line within ten seconds has control of the ball in the backcourt.
b) He successfully passes (regardless of whether the pass is long or short, fast or slow) the ball (control maintained) to a teammate who is forward of the line.
c) The ball is caught after the ten-second limitation has expired, HOWEVER THE IN-FLIGHT BALL CROSSED OVER THE LINE BEFORE TIME EXPIRED.
Is this a violation?

I ask this because that is what I believe occurred last night against Clemson (although I easily could be wrong, since the only shot clock view provided by ESPN was in a replay).

[sporthenry]

Does a ten-second violation occur in the following hypothetical situation:
a) A player on the team with the burden to get the ball across the line within ten seconds has control of the ball in the backcourt.
b) He successfully passes (regardless of whether the pass is long or short, fast or slow) the ball (control maintained) to a teammate who is forward of the line.
c) The ball is caught after the ten-second limitation has expired, HOWEVER THE IN-FLIGHT BALL CROSSED OVER THE LINE BEFORE TIME EXPIRED.
Is this a violation?

I ask this because that is what I believe occurred last night against Clemson (although I easily could be wrong, since the only shot clock view provided by ESPN was in a replay).

Rule 4. Section 3. Art 3.
a. A ball that is in contact with a player or with the playing court shall
be in the back court when either the ball or the player (either player
when the ball is touching more than one) is touching the back court.
It shall be in the front court when neither the ball nor the player is
touching the back court.
b. A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains
the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the
playing court.
c. During a dribble from back court to front court, the ball shall be in
the front court when both feet of the dribbler and the ball touch the
playing court entirely in the front court.

So it applies under (b.) which clearly states the ball is considered at TT's location until Singler gets it.

[X-Man]

Based on this....

b. A ball that is not in contact with a player or the playing court retains
the same status as when it was last in contact with a player or the
playing court.

the answer would be yes, in that scenario, it would be a back court violation.

Edit - sorry...SportHenry beat me to it...

[4decadedukie]

SportHenry and X-Man: Thanks, got it -- and learned something.

[SCMatt33]

It's not being that kind, Kyle Singler actually received the pass on the other side of the line at the 25 second mark.

1884

It's still a violation since the tenth second ticked off when the clock went from 26 to 25. when the clock reads "25", the actual time left is somewhere between 24.000001 and 25.0, all which occur at least 10 seconds after the ball has been touched.

[Saratoga2]

Elmore and Patrick both said the refs blew the call and Duke should have been called for the 10 second violation. Patrick even said that it wasn't close, when the replay indicated that if the announcers were correct it was touched in our front court in 11 seconds. Just another way of saying Duke get's all the calls. GoDuke!

So if I am in the back court and throw a lob pass at 9.5 seconds and it is caught in the front court at 10.4 seconds is that a violation. Certainly the ball is released in the back court before 10 seconds has elapsed, so the player passing player no longer has control.

In an equivalent situation, a player makes a shot with the game clock going down and it passes through the bucket after the light comes on, is it a bucket or not?

I don't have my rule book in Florida, so I can't check these.

[DukeUsul]

So if I am in the back court and throw a lob pass at 9.5 seconds and it is caught in the front court at 10.4 seconds is that a violation. Certainly the ball is released in the back court before 10 seconds has elapsed, so the player passing player no longer has control.

In an equivalent situation, a player makes a shot with the game clock going down and it passes through the bucket after the light comes on, is it a bucket or not?

I don't have my rule book in Florida, so I can't check these.

We've just been over all this. While it's in the air, it's still considered in the backcourt. It is not in the frontcourt until the player who is in the frontcourt touches it.

The second situation is not equivalent. The rules are different. The rules state that the ball need only leave the player's touch before the clock runs out for it to be a valid try for goal.

[Class of '94]

Wow that is the best picture on earth.

I think ESPN has been on a slight anti-duke kick lately because everyone else in the world is sick of Duke/UNC.

There was almost no hype for the first game (aired on ESPN) by historical standards and I know it's a huge complaint from Big-10 fans, etc.

ESPN is just mad that they don't have the rights to show what should be a heck of game Saturday night between Duke and Carolina....:)

In all honesty, I thought Elmore and Patrick went overboard on this "one" call. It was ridiculous for them to spend the next 5 minutes of their broadcast harping on that one call.

[gus]

It's still a violation since the tenth second ticked off when the clock went from 26 to 25. when the clock reads "25", the actual time left is somewhere between 24.000001 and 25.0, all which occur at least 10 seconds after the ball has been touched.

I agree that if the clock were exactly 25.0 when Kyle caught the ball, that would be a violation (assuming the clock starts at exactly 35.0 when the inbounds is caught).

However, I don't follow your argument that the clock actually says 24 when it says 25. Wouldn't any time between 25.00 and 25.99 show as 25?

[dukee94]

It's still a violation since the tenth second ticked off when the clock went from 26 to 25. when the clock reads "25", the actual time left is somewhere between 24.000001 and 25.0, all which occur at least 10 seconds after the ball has been touched.

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a violation, merely replying to an earlier comment that "saying the ball even passed the half-court line at the 25 sec. mark is being kind to Duke."

Using the shot clock for the 10 second call definitely shows that we took 10 seconds to get it across the line. I believe the official was counting slightly slower than that, but then they called the quick foul on Tyler to correct for the slow counting and give possession (properly) back to Clemson.

[jacone21]

The key point, as mentioned earlier is that it's not the shot clock that matters. It's the official's count. The shot clock is a shot clock. Period.

What's next? Is espn going to create a "Five Second Closely Guarded" clock? Or maybe a "Five Second Inbound the Ball" clock? The official's count was a little slow.

[tele]

The key point, as mentioned earlier is that it's not the shot clock that matters. It's the official's count. The shot clock is a shot clock. Period.

What's next? Is espn going to create a "Five Second Closely Guarded" clock? Or maybe a "Five Second Inbound the Ball" clock? The official's count was a little slow.

You are right about the officials count being the one that matters. But that doesn't necessarily mean the officials count was slow, it is possible that the shot clock didn't start at exactly the same instant as the official started his count. That is two different people deciding when the ball was inbounded, one on the baseline and one sitting at midcourt. Just going by memory, the inbounds pass went to Singler and was also a somewhat long cross court pass, it's possible for the shot clock keeper to start the clock half a tick early, and for the official, who was probably the same one counting the inbounds pass 5 second count, to take a instant longer to start the 10 second count.

In my limited experience, keeping all the counts is one of the least enjoyable parts of officiating. It is very hard for me to ever criticize a ref for a bad call on a count, even for missed three second call which it seems few officials even bother to make anymore. Have to remember when everyone else is enjoying watching or playing the game, there are three guys who are spending the majority of the time counting to themselves. Harder than it sounds.

[cato]

I agree that if the clock were exactly 25.0 when Kyle caught the ball, that would be a violation (assuming the clock starts at exactly 35.0 when the inbounds is caught).

However, I don't follow your argument that the clock actually says 24 when it says 25. Wouldn't any time between 25.00 and 25.99 show as 25?

If the clock starts at exactly 35.0 when the inbouds is caught, I think you're right. If so, the instant the clock operator starts the clock, it turns to 34 (i.e., 34.9). So, the 1st second after inbounding the ball is 34.9 to 34.0.

However, I don't think we can tell whether the shot clock showed 25 or 24 when Kyle caught the ball. Does the ESPN screen cap above show the actual shot clock? When they played the replay, they showed a different clock, and I don't know if they were actually simultaneous.

Either way, what matters is the count kept by the ref. Clearly, he didn't get to 10 before Kyle caught the ball. However, it could easily have gone the other way, since we are dealing with fractions of a second that humans cannot reliable keep track of.

[X-Man]

I agree that if the clock were exactly 25.0 when Kyle caught the ball, that would be a violation (assuming the clock starts at exactly 35.0 when the inbounds is caught).

However, I don't follow your argument that the clock actually says 24 when it says 25. Wouldn't any time between 25.00 and 25.99 show as 25?

When the clock displays 25 for 1 full second, it's measuring the time between 24.01 and 24.99. So the point at which the shot clock displays 25, a full 10 seconds have elapsed (and possibly up to 10.99 seconds have passed). Assuming the shot clock starts at 35 when the ball is first touched in bounds, 1 second has elapsed when the shot clock turns 34, 2 seconds have elapsed when the shot clock displays 33 etc...

Your assumption would be true if time was being counted up (rather than being counted down) :)

[cato]

When the clock displays 25 for 1 full second, it's measuring the time between 24.01 and 24.99. So the point at which the shot clock displays 25, a full 10 seconds have elapsed (and possibly up to 10.99 seconds have passed). Assuming the shot clock starts at 35 when the ball is first touched in bounds, 1 second has elapsed when the shot clock turns 34, 2 seconds have elapsed when the shot clock displays 33 etc...

Your assumption would be true if time was being counted up (rather than being counted down) :)

You are assuming that the clock displays 35 for one whole second, counting down from 35.9 to 35.0. I don't think that is correct. I think it starts at 35.0, and goes to 34.9 immediately when started.

[X-Man]

You are assuming that the clock displays 35 for one whole second, counting down from 35.9 to 35.0. I don't think that is correct. I think it starts at 35.0, and goes to 34.9 immediately when started.

Well yes and no....the clock starts at 35 and would immediately go to 34.9 of course, but the question is, what is displayed on the shot clock from 34 to 34.99? Is it the number 35 or the number 34? Since a full 35 seconds is allocated for the possession, I would say it's 35...otherwise somewhere between 35 and 0 a number will have to be displayed for close to a full 2 seconds (hope that makes sense).

Edit - think of it this way....the number 35 is displayed for 1 second, the number 34 is displayed for 1 second...etc to...the number 1 is displayed for 1 second for a total of 35 seconds.

[dw0827]

This all makes me wonder about another play we often see. We make a basket. The other team takes the ball and has five seconds to inbound the ball. But they roll the ball down the court and the guy doesn't pick it up for quite awhile. I could have sworn that I saw a five second violation called on that several years ago . . . once. But I don't think it's really called . . .

It seems that, in accordance with the logic of this thread, the ball must be picked up within five seconds. But yet, it doesn't seem to get called a violation (assuming that more than seconds elapses between the time the ref hands the ball to the player and the time the other player actually picks it up).

[tele]

However, it could easily have gone the other way, since we are dealing with fractions of a second that humans cannot reliable keep track of.

Not to split hairs, or seconds, but the shot clock doesn't keep track of fractions of a second either, only the game clock does this.

[dukee94]

However, I don't think we can tell whether the shot clock showed 25 or 24 when Kyle caught the ball. Does the ESPN screen cap above show the actual shot clock? When they played the replay, they showed a different clock, and I don't know if they were actually simultaneous.


(Disclaimer: as stated the only thing that matters is the official's count.)

Good catch, the screen cap I posted was from the live play. I just went back and looked at the replay they showed and it is different. In the replay it is a yellowish shot clock and it is probably .1 seconds ahead of the clock shown on the live play. I believe this replay is more accurate. In the live play when the red espn shot clock is at the 27 second mark you can see the actual physical clock above the basket change to 26 just before the red espn clock changes. In the replay the physical clock and the yellow espn clock change almost at the same time at that spot and appear to be better synchronized. In the replay the clock changes to 24 as the ball hits Kyle's hands. My apologies for the confusion between the two clocks.

[Neals384]

OK, I replayed the thing in slo-mo...

Tyler released the ball with 26 on the shot clock.
The shot clock ticked over to 25 with the ball in the air; it had not reached half-court line.
The clock ticked over to 24 an instant after Kyle caught it in front court.
The official doing the hand-count only got to 7, so he was a full three seconds slow on his count.

By the way the announcers were so obsessed with the no-call that they never informed us of the foul on Thornton that came right after.

[Olympic Fan]

This all makes me wonder about another play we often see. We make a basket. The other team takes the ball and has five seconds to inbound the ball. But they roll the ball down the court and the guy doesn't pick it up for quite awhile. I could have sworn that I saw a five second violation called on that several years ago . . . once. But I don't think it's really called . . .

It seems that, in accordance with the logic of this thread, the ball must be picked up within five seconds. But yet, it doesn't seem to get called a violation (assuming that more than seconds elapses between the time the ref hands the ball to the player and the time the other player actually picks it up).

They changed the inbound time-count several years ago (I think in the late 90s, but I'm not sure of the exact year).

For years and years, the rule was that the inbounds pass must be touched within five seconds. Now, the rule is that it must be inbounded within five seconds. The count stops as soon as it leave the passer's hands ... thus the play you see with the ball rolling slowly up the court to conserve time is perfectly legal.

The 10-second call is different ... it must be received in the frontcourt before the 10 second deadline.

For all that, the degree of hysteria over that play in last night's game is ridiculous. First, the refs use their handcount and not the shot clock. As a veteran ref explained to me, they are taught to watch the game, not the clock. Secondly, watching the replay (and the freeze frame posted earlier in this thread), it's one of those plays that is so close that a replay is inconclusive ... how much outrage can you generate over a call that's that debateable?

Finally, one of the refs must have thought they blew it, because within seconds of the non-10 second call, Tyler Thornton was called for a ridiculous offensive foul ... what appeared to bea clear makeup call.

I thought there were a LOT of officiating mistakes in last nigh's game. Duke benefited from some of the miscues ... Clemson benefit from some. Underneath, shooters on both sides were being hammered. One reason Nolan had eight turnovers was that the Clemson defenders were allowed to bump, push and shove him almost at will.

Players on both teams were struggling to cope with the erratic officiating.

I go to other boards and see the "Duke gets all the calls" mantra ... and then they cite 3-4-5 cals that go in Duke's favor. They don't see (or ignore) the calls that go against the Devils.

Duke did not get all the calls last night -- not by a long shot. But the officiating was terrible last night and some of the errors did go in Duke's favor.

[gus]

Finally, one of the refs must have thought they blew it, because within seconds of the non-10 second call, Tyler Thornton was called for a ridiculous offensive foul ... what appeared to bea clear makeup call.

Using a subsequent call to argue that an official questioned an earlier call is begging the question. Besides, I doubt refs at that level make "make up calls". A bad call has a 50% chance of going the other way from a prior bad call.

[tele]

They changed the inbound time-count several years ago (I think in the late 90s, but I'm not sure of the exact year).

For years and years, the rule was that the inbounds pass must be touched within five seconds. Now, the rule is that it must be inbounded within five seconds. The count stops as soon as it leave the passer's hands ... thus the play you see with the ball rolling slowly up the court to conserve time is perfectly legal.
.

Do you happen to know if this rule is now the same in the NBA and international ball too?

[cato]

Duke did not get all the calls last night -- not by a long shot. But the officiating was terrible last night and some of the errors did go in Duke's favor.

That is absolutely correct, IMO. Also, for all the hatred toward Elmore, at least he pointed this out a couple of times toward the end of the game.

[killerleft]

It's not being that kind, Kyle Singler actually received the pass on the other side of the line at the 25 second mark.

1884

The clock was at 25 before Kyle received the pass. It changed to 25 about the time the ball passed the midcourt line. And it was being kind to not wait another millisecond before taking that snapshot.

[sporthenry]

They changed the inbound time-count several years ago (I think in the late 90s, but I'm not sure of the exact year).

For years and years, the rule was that the inbounds pass must be touched within five seconds. Now, the rule is that it must be inbounded within five seconds. The count stops as soon as it leave the passer's hands ... thus the play you see with the ball rolling slowly up the court to conserve time is perfectly legal.

The 10-second call is different ... it must be received in the frontcourt before the 10 second deadline.

For all that, the degree of hysteria over that play in last night's game is ridiculous. First, the refs use their handcount and not the shot clock. As a veteran ref explained to me, they are taught to watch the game, not the clock. Secondly, watching the replay (and the freeze frame posted earlier in this thread), it's one of those plays that is so close that a replay is inconclusive ... how much outrage can you generate over a call that's that debateable?

Finally, one of the refs must have thought they blew it, because within seconds of the non-10 second call, Tyler Thornton was called for a ridiculous offensive foul ... what appeared to bea clear makeup call.

I thought there were a LOT of officiating mistakes in last nigh's game. Duke benefited from some of the miscues ... Clemson benefit from some. Underneath, shooters on both sides were being hammered. One reason Nolan had eight turnovers was that the Clemson defenders were allowed to bump, push and shove him almost at will.

Players on both teams were struggling to cope with the erratic officiating.

I go to other boards and see the "Duke gets all the calls" mantra ... and then they cite 3-4-5 cals that go in Duke's favor. They don't see (or ignore) the calls that go against the Devils.

Duke did not get all the calls last night -- not by a long shot. But the officiating was terrible last night and some of the errors did go in Duke's favor.

On a side note, while you don't have to pick it up after 5 seconds, I thought that I read somewhere that it is a technical foul if the ball isn't touched within 10 or 15 seconds. I tried looking for this rule and I couldn't find it but I don't think I could have made the rule up by myself.

[wacobluedevil]

It is interesting to note that the officials count off the ten seconds themselves, using that same hand-slash motion they use to count off a 5-second inbounds timer or 5-seconds closely guarded. You can watch the official on that play count as the ball is coming upcourt. He had counted to 8 and was just counting 9 when the ball made it to the frontcourt. You can see he's counting slower than the game-clock, especially as he got near the end.

It seems to me that in the reality of the game, the officials frequently count a bit slower than "real" seconds on many of these types of situations. My hope is that if they do, that they are counting off consistently for both teams across all of these kinds of counts.

This is the key point. I was at a Big 12 game last year and a ten second call was made, and the shot clot was on 26. The coach went ballistic, but all the ref did was point to himself as if to say, it's my count, and only my count.

This reminds me of an old baseball umpire joke. Three umps are arguing about how to call balls and strikes. The first says, "I calls 'em as I sees 'em." The second says, "No, I calls 'em as they is." The third says, "You're both wrong. They ain't nothin' til I call 'em!"

[Newton_14]

Here is the part that I assume the TV announcers did not tell those watching on the tube: The very second that the ball got away from Tyler, K jumped up and asked for a timeout to avoid a 10 second call. One ref was no more than 10 feet from him and K is being very demonstrative using the hand signal while also screaming "timeout".

For some odd reason, even though it appeared the ref saw him, they did not grant the timeout. I thought it was going to be a 10 second violation for sure. I could not believe the ref did not grant the timeout. The offensive foul on Tyler was an obvious make up call.

The officiating was horrible most of the night. Nolan got killed on several plays as did Kyle. There was the fast break where Mason got fouled and made the acrobatic shot, and got called for a walk. The two strange offensive fouls in a row on Nolan in the last two minutes, etc. Then Nolan got fouled going to the hoop with no call. K called a timeout to get Nolan's emotions under control. Collins literally ran onto the court at that timeout and bear hugged Nolan trying to calm him down.

As Oly said Clemson got hosed a few times as well. There was just no consistency. I also thought the 2nd half was officiated significantly different than the 1st half. So any adjustments the teams made at the half to deal with how the game was being officiated got thrown out the window.

I attended every home game except for UVA and State, and it has been a weird year in terms of officiating. There wasn't a single home game where I felt Duke got the benefit of the doubt on most of the calls. It seemed every game the opponent got more leeway than Duke, especially on the 50/50 calls.

[-jk]

Here is the part that I assume the TV announcers did not tell those watching on the tube: The very second that the ball got away from Tyler, K jumped up and asked for a timeout to avoid a 10 second call. One ref was no more than 10 feet from him and K is being very demonstrative using the hand signal while also screaming "timeout".

For some odd reason, even though it appeared the ref saw him, they did not grant the timeout. I thought it was going to be a 10 second violation for sure. I could not believe the ref did not grant the timeout. The offensive foul on Tyler was an obvious make up call.

The officiating was horrible most of the night. Nolan got killed on several plays as did Kyle. There was the fast break where Mason got fouled and made the acrobatic shot, and got called for a walk. The two strange offensive fouls in a row on Nolan in the last two minutes, etc. Then Nolan got fouled going to the hoop with no call. K called a timeout to get Nolan's emotions under control. Collins literally ran onto the court at that timeout and bear hugged Nolan trying to calm him down.

As Oly said Clemson got hosed a few times as well. There was just no consistency. I also thought the 2nd half was officiated significantly different than the 1st half. So any adjustments the teams made at the half to deal with how the game was being officiated got thrown out the window.

I attended every home game except for UVA and State, and it has been a weird year in terms of officiating. There wasn't a single home game where I felt Duke got the benefit of the doubt on most of the calls. It seemed every game the opponent got more leeway than Duke, especially on the 50/50 calls.

If K signaled for the TO after the ball was thrown, the ref was correct to ignore it. A player must be in control of the ball for a team to take a TO. With the ball in the air, we had team control but not player control.

-jk

[dukeblue4ever]

If K signaled for the TO after the ball was thrown, the ref was correct to ignore it. A player must be in control of the ball for a team to take a TO. With the ball in the air, we had team control but not player control.

-jkFrom what it sounds like Boozer (or Newton 14?) is saying, when Tyler lost possession the first time with about 5 seconds left, Coach called the timeout frantically, not when the ball left his hands on the pass.

I could very well be wrong; I'm not watching any replay, and I didn't see the timeout but am going on Boozer's post.

[Newton_14]

From what it sounds like Boozer (or Newton 14?) is saying, when Tyler lost possession the first time with about 5 seconds left, Coach called the timeout frantically, not when the ball left his hands on the pass.

I could very well be wrong; I'm not watching any replay, and I didn't see the timeout but am going on Boozer's post.

Correct. Just reread my post and see I did not make it clear. K jumped up to ask for the timeout as soon as the ball started rolling away from Tyler. When Tyler picked the ball up, K was literally on the court screaming for a timeout. He did that well before Tyler made the pass.

[ajgoodfella7]

I don't see why anyone would be making a big deal out of this. The ref in the backcourt does his own 10-second count until the ball is brought over half court. Since they don't actually use the shot clock on top of the hoop (it would obviously be a tad distracting), their count is probably fractions of a second off almost every time. I think everyone knows that just because you count to ten doesn't mean exactly 10 seconds have elapsed. If you measure 5 different people counting to ten, they will likely all get there fractions of time apart from one another. Just like there are many times that 5-second violations are called when it seems like only 3 or 4 seconds have passed. Refs have always made mistakes and will continue to always make mistakes. Case closed. Go to hell Carolina.

[Gewebe14]

Using a subsequent call to argue that an official questioned an earlier call is begging the question. Besides, I doubt refs at that level make "make up calls". A bad call has a 50% chance of going the other way from a prior bad call.

I whole-heartedly disagree with this statement. I think most sports have graduated to neutral officiating. College BBall and hockey have not. Though in hockey, it's really just an accepted/expected part of the game.

[throatybeard]

This reminds me of something that has always been a trivial, mild irritant, one I'm sure will never be fixed. This goes back at least as far as when I began attending games in Fall 1994.

When our team has the ball on the last possession of the first half, the students give what I guess is supposed to be a helpful count to our ballhandler. (Not like the purposely false shot-clock count we give opponents). But they shout "nine" when the clock turns from 10 to 9.9, so they're already close to a second ahead. Then, since everyone watches the ball not the clock, and since the chant is subject to what I call Undergrad Acceleration Disorder (c.f., "eouu, eouu"), people end up shouting "one" when there are between two and three seconds left, commonly something like 2.5 or 2.7. To anyone watching on TV, it seems, bizarrely, as though all these $50K tuition-paying, 800 Math SAT-scoring twenty-year olds cannot count.

It's been this way at least since I was a frosh, and probably always will.