Rule Clarification

[downtowndevil]

Disclaimer: this is NOT a "heels got away with one" post. Just intellectual curiosity about a rule.

When Henson touched the half court heave (UW player looking for a foul as smartly pointed out by Pitino in the studio), and extra time ran off the clock, the referee supervisor said the rule is that the clock stops when the ref signals and/or blows the whistle (can't remember if there's a distinction between the 2). Replays show that the ref did not signal or blow the whistle until an observable amount of time ran of the clock once the ball hit the floor out of bounds after being touched by Henson. Fine.

The supervisor then said it is reviewable to get the right time on the clock, but if I understood him correctly he meant at what time the signal/whistle occurred. Not when the ball hit the floor. If I understand this correctly does anyone else think that sort defeats the whole purpose of it being reviewable for timing in the first place? Seems to me the whole point would be to figure out when the play should be dead regardless of when human reaction time got around to saying so.

And how would a rule like that get changed to allow the refs to set the clock when the ball hit out of bounds? Is there the college equiv of the NFL competition committee made up of refs/coaches/ad's?

Seems like it would be low hanging fruit to use existing technology, nothing fancy, to fine tune the game in those crucial situations.

[SCMatt33]

I just looked at the play again a looked through the rule book (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf). (For those interested, Rule 2-12 (correctable errors), 2-13 (use of the monitor), and Rule 5 (scoring and timing) are all pertinent here. Rule 5-10 outlines when the clock is to be stopped, but every instance involves the official recognizing or granting a stoppage. The rule basically starts out by saying the clock "shall be stopped when an
official:" In this rule, there are no natural clock stoppages that occur within the game and only when the official stops it.

There are things in the correctable error and monitor rules that allow the clock to be reset, but only one that I see that specifically mentions resetting the clock to "the moment" something occurred. That is for an end game (clock reads zero before checking monitor) foul in which the rule specifically states that if a foul was called, the officials should reset the clock to when the foul occurred as opposed to when it was called.

The general rule for putting time back on the clock reads as follows:

"Determine the correct time to be placed back on the game clock
when the referee blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to
be stopped, and in his/her judgment time has elapsed before the
game clock stopped."

This rule applies to all situations including made baskets, timeouts, and fouls with any time left when the clock was stopped.

I just watched the Henson thing again on MMOD, and unfortunately all of the replays were during the studio show, so the only shot that is available is the live one. There are several problems in using this shot anyway. First is obviously that you can't get slow motion and the time between the ball hitting and the ref blowing the whistle/starting to signal is very very small. With the naked eye, I can't imagine that the ref was over half a second late, as .5 being left would indicate. The other issue with the live shot is that because of all the processing that the data has to go through, the TV clock (and the one on the ribbon lights and overhead scoreboard for that matter) is about 2-3 tenths late. Here is a photo of Hayward's last shot (http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gordon-hayward1.jpg) which conveniently illustrates this. As it is, it is really tough to tell without those replays that displayed the game clock what the proper time left would have been.

As for changing the rule, the committee for this meets every April after the season is over. The process can take varying amounts of time to complete for a rule depending on the importance, urgency, and impact. For example, rules adding or moving lines can take years to implement. They had initially talked about a charge circle before the 2010 season, but just got around to testing it during select in season tournaments this season, and a permanent line is likely still another year or two away. The rule allowing officials to go to the monitor for flagrant fouls and the enhanced penalty for elbows, however, were implemented immediately after they were brought up.

[WakeDevil]

You have to allow for reaction time. The ball hits OOB; the whistle blows; the clock operator hears it and stops the clock. If I have a similar situation late in the game, I might glance at the scoreboard after the whistle. If the clock is still running, we might have a problem.

On another play involving Henson, some have asked about his putting his hands over the line on the late inbounds play. In HS, that is legal once the ball is released. The NCAA rule does not allow that. The difference is stated in the back of the HS rule book.

[uh_no]

You have to allow for reaction time. The ball hits OOB; the whistle blows; the clock operator hears it and stops the clock.

No. The little beeper like think on the referees belt stops the clock automatically when the whistle is blown.

[-jk]

It seems to me I've seen them put time back on the clock over and over this season on last minute field goals. The refs all run over, huddle next to the monitor, and - presto! - time is back on the clock.

-jk

[crimsonandblue]

It seems to me I've seen them put time back on the clock over and over this season on last minute field goals. The refs all run over, huddle next to the monitor, and - presto! - time is back on the clock.

-jk

True, but there's a difference between a stoppage due to, say the ball going through the basket, which is automatic, and one tied to the referee stopping play due to a violation. One keys to the event. The other to the refs' whistles.

[uh_no]

i bet they change that rule...

also does anyone have a clarification on the head of refereeing saying the timeout rule was no timeouts after 4 seconds despite that rule not appearing in the rulebook

[SCMatt33]

True, but there's a difference between a stoppage due to, say the ball going through the basket, which is automatic, and one tied to the referee stopping play due to a violation. One keys to the event. The other to the refs' whistles.

Stopping the clock after a basket is not automatic. The rule for stopping the clock is as follows.

Section 10. Stopping Game and Shot Clocks
The game clock and shot clock, if running, shall be stopped when an
official:
...
Art. 10. Recognizes each successful field goal in the last 59.9 seconds of the
second half or any extra period.

Theoretically the clock should only stop when the official recognizes the field goal, just as it should stop when the official recognizes a violation. I would assume that the ref if much quicker to recognize a field goal, since he knows that a shot was put up and is just waiting to see whether it goes through, but theoretically, the rule is the same for both. Technically, the rule says that the ref had to "signal" a violation and "recognize" a field goal, so there could be some difference there, but the word "recognize" is also used for timeouts, and I know those are reset to when it was granted and not called, so I still think that as the rule currently reads, there is little difference between them.

[dcdevil2009]

The play reminded me of the ending the the Rutgers St. Johns Big East tournament game where the player stepped out of bounds and then threw the ball into the stands as time expired. Assuming he didn't step out of bounds and had just thrown the ball into the air, should the refs have blown the ball dead when the ball finally touched someone in the stands or could they have blown it dead before? Before seeing the UNC ending, (again, assuming he didn't step out) I thought the time properly expired because the ball had enough hang time before touching anyone to run out the 1.5 seconds left on the clock, but now I'm not sure because the ball was clearly out of play without touching someone well before time ran out. Basically, if the ref signaling out of bounds is what stops the clock, does it matter when the ball touches out of bounds or when the ref decides the ball is far enough away to be unplayable?

[sporthenry]

I think the issue with the made FG is that then it is stopped by the official scorer but the OOB I believe is stopped by the whistle which is somehow connected to the clock. I might be wrong, but that would explain why they go over after a made FG b/c the clock guy is late, but that would again signify human error but this human error I guess is different?

[Bluedog]

i bet they change that rule...

also does anyone have a clarification on the head of refereeing saying the timeout rule was no timeouts after 4 seconds despite that rule not appearing in the rulebook

I'm fairly certain the head of refereeing was mistaken and didn't know the rule...which would be pretty sad, but all the evidence leads to that conclusion.

On another topic, maybe it was an article linked here, but Roy stated he instructed his team to foul when up 3. So, clearly the UW player was aware of that and expected the foul, so he launched the shot.

[slower]

Disclaimer: this is NOT a "heels got away with one" post. Just intellectual curiosity about a rule.

When Henson touched the half court heave (UW player looking for a foul as smartly pointed out by Pitino in the studio), and extra time ran off the clock, the referee supervisor said the rule is that the clock stops when the ref signals and/or blows the whistle (can't remember if there's a distinction between the 2). Replays show that the ref did not signal or blow the whistle until an observable amount of time ran of the clock once the ball hit the floor out of bounds after being touched by Henson. Fine.

The supervisor then said it is reviewable to get the right time on the clock, but if I understood him correctly he meant at what time the signal/whistle occurred. Not when the ball hit the floor. If I understand this correctly does anyone else think that sort defeats the whole purpose of it being reviewable for timing in the first place? Seems to me the whole point would be to figure out when the play should be dead regardless of when human reaction time got around to saying so.

And how would a rule like that get changed to allow the refs to set the clock when the ball hit out of bounds? Is there the college equiv of the NFL competition committee made up of refs/coaches/ad's?

Seems like it would be low hanging fruit to use existing technology, nothing fancy, to fine tune the game in those crucial situations.


Did you hear what John Adams said when they asked him about a whistle blown too soon? They asked what would have happened if the ref had blown the whistle with two seconds left (too soon, in that case, versus too late, as in the Wash game).

He said they might have had to go to the alternating possesion arrow. WTF? why would it NOT go to replay?

[uh_no]

Did you hear what John Adams said when they asked him about a whistle blown too soon? They asked what would have happened if the ref had blown the whistle with two seconds left (too soon, in that case, versus too late, as in the Wash game).

He said they might have had to go to the alternating possesion arrow. WTF? why would it NOT go to replay?

If the refs cannot come to an agreement as to who should be in possession of the ball, the correct action is to go to the possession arrow. It's effectively a jump ball situation

[SCMatt33]

Did you hear what John Adams said when they asked him about a whistle blown too soon? They asked what would have happened if the ref had blown the whistle with two seconds left (too soon, in that case, versus too late, as in the Wash game).

He said they might have had to go to the alternating possesion arrow. WTF? why would it NOT go to replay?

This was talked about a little in the East Region thread, but it is worth mentioning again. Basically it came down to Greg Anthony asking the wrong question. With 2 seconds left, the ball was still in the middle of that half court shot, and Henson had yet to touch it. In this case, it would have been an inadvertent whistle with no team in control of the ball. The following rule would then apply:

Section 3. Alternating-Possession Situations
Art. 1. The ball shall be put in play by the team entitled to the throw-in at a
designated spot where:
...
g. An inadvertent whistle occurs, and there is no player or team control.

What Anthony should have asked is what would have happened if the ref had called the out of bounds violation on Henson a couple of tenths before the ball technically touched out of bounds? In that case a violation was called and it would be Washington's ball, but I'm not sure what the time would have been. By the letter of the rule, it should go to the time when the violation was called, but I don't think anyone would argue too much if they went to when the violation occurred (especially since you likely would have been dealing with something like 1.3 instead of 1.1

[uh_no]

This was talked about a little in the East Region thread, but it is worth mentioning again. Basically it came down to Greg Anthony asking the wrong question. With 2 seconds left, the ball was still in the middle of that half court shot, and Henson had yet to touch it. In this case, it would have been an inadvertent whistle with no team in control of the ball. The following rule would then apply:

Section 3. Alternating-Possession Situations
Art. 1. The ball shall be put in play by the team entitled to the throw-in at a
designated spot where:
...
g. An inadvertent whistle occurs, and there is no player or team control.

What Anthony should have asked is what would have happened if the ref had called the out of bounds violation on Henson a couple of tenths before the ball technically touched out of bounds? In that case a violation was called and it would be Washington's ball, but I'm not sure what the time would have been. By the letter of the rule, it should go to the time when the violation was called, but I don't think anyone would argue too much if they went to when the violation occurred (especially since you likely would have been dealing with something like 1.3 instead of 1.1

Great explanation.

[sporthenry]

Yeah, my main question is if the ref doesn't blow the whislte similar to the score keeper forgetting to stop the clock, then what happens? Someone joked, just ask Rutgers, but I do fear if the game would just end. And if the game didn't end and the refs went back and put more time on the clock, does that mean UW would have been better had the ref just missed it b/c then they would have gotten their human reaction time back? B/c I doubt the refs go, it went out with 1.1 seconds but lets deduct .5 seconds for human reaction.

[uh_no]

Yeah, my main question is if the ref doesn't blow the whislte similar to the score keeper forgetting to stop the clock, then what happens? Someone joked, just ask Rutgers, but I do fear if the game would just end. And if the game didn't end and the refs went back and put more time on the clock, does that mean UW would have been better had the ref just missed it b/c then they would have gotten their human reaction time back? B/c I doubt the refs go, it went out with 1.1 seconds but lets deduct .5 seconds for human reaction.

I think this rule will change....becuase it doesn't make sense....

Personally I think its great that they're talking to the head of officiating so much, really brings a sense of accountability to the whole reffing scheme (as opposed to the MLB where they hide behind walls and pretend to be gods)

Its a shame he was straight up wrong on the inbounds rule though....embarrasing....but I think in bounds rules will be clarified next year, and the timing on the ball going out of bounds will be changed

[sporthenry]

I hate how other leagues hide behind the rules mainly the MLB as well but the NCAA looks pretty bad after the past few weeks and I don't believe is getting nearly enough blame.
There were 2 situations where it appeared the ref didn't know the rule. The Texas/Zona game was just bad rules but as it stands now, the refs didn't do anything wrong. As the guy said, they could have just made sure and went to the monitor but they weren't required.
But on the inbounds play, it certainly appeared the ref thought you couldn't call it after 4.
And my biggest grievance is the backcourt violation which isn't getting much press. Sure he walked, but all he has to do is dribble and who knows if he heard the whistle and just stopped. The ref didn't know the rule and that is inexcusable as opposed to a missed call.
But I guess this is the fallout from the BE tournament where the refs are almost trying to make calls.

[slower]

What Anthony should have asked is what would have happened if the ref had called the out of bounds violation on Henson a couple of tenths before the ball technically touched out of bounds? In that case a violation was called and it would be Washington's ball, but I'm not sure what the time would have been. By the letter of the rule, it should go to the time when the violation was called, but I don't think anyone would argue too much if they went to when the violation occurred (especially since you likely would have been dealing with something like 1.3 instead of 1.1

That's what I inferred that Anthony was asking. Thanks for the explanation.

I wonder if hoops will ever try a "challenge" system, similar to the NFL.

[uh_no]

And my biggest grievance is the backcourt violation which isn't getting much press. Sure he walked, but all he has to do is dribble and who knows if he heard the whistle and just stopped. The ref didn't know the rule and that is inexcusable as opposed to a missed call.


The whistle didn't blow til after the travel. The ref might have thought when he caught the ball one foot was still in the front court (which would have meant when he stepped on the line it was backcourt). I agree, the call was wrong, but the player shouldn't have put the ref in that position. He should have just went into the backcourt and caught the ball.

I think the head of officiating was right on one thing when he said 'well don't foul with hardly any time left'....don't do stupid stuff and put refs in positions to have to make bad calls

UNC almost getting called for goal tending on the last shot? (given it was only a 2)
the fouls at the end of the pitt game
syracuse guy not knowing the rules either and trying desperately to stay in the frontcourt but putting a toe on the line (almost begging the official to make the wrong call)
taking the 5 second call so close to the line that the ref made a mistake
running out of bounds with time on the clock?

we don't have to deal with these things at duke because we don't put ourselves in positions where refs can make bad calls. Obviously the refs should get it right (and there is NO excuse for not knowing the rules...NONE) but its clear that the refs will get it wrong sometimes, and the best thing you can do as a team is not be dumb and make it easy for the refs to make the right call

[dcdevil2009]

I think the head of officiating was right on one thing when he said 'well don't foul with hardly any time left'....don't do stupid stuff and put refs in positions to have to make bad calls

I've got to disagree with you on this. You can't blame the player for expecting the ref to do his job correctly. I know refs are human and make mistakes like everyone else, but just like the teams, the officiating crews in the tournament are supposed to be the best in the NCAA.

Granted players shouldn't push the limit for the sake of pushing the limit, but when they have to adjust their play because they expect the refs to screw up, it's bad for their team and basketball in general. Maybe this isn't the best example, but look at the block/charge calls. If Duke didn't go for so many charges because they were afraid they'd be incorrectly called blocking fouls, wouldn't our defense suffer? Would you blame our players for putting the refs in the position to make the wrong call?

[uh_no]

I've got to disagree with you on this. You can't blame the player for expecting the ref to do his job correctly. I know refs are human and make mistakes like everyone else, but just like the teams, the officiating crews in the tournament are supposed to be the best in the NCAA.

Granted players shouldn't push the limit for the sake of pushing the limit, but when they have to adjust their play because they expect the refs to screw up, it's bad for their team and basketball in general. Maybe this isn't the best example, but look at the block/charge calls. If Duke didn't go for so many charges because they were afraid they'd be incorrectly called blocking fouls, wouldn't our defense suffer? Would you blame our players for putting the refs in the position to make the wrong call?

No: because refs have proven again and again they will make that charge call more often then not. I think our taking all those charges is a specific response to the way the refs call it. Here's a counter example: if refs INCORRECTLY called all those charges as blocks, would we still continue to stand our ground because we expect the ref to do his job? doubtful. Bremmen covered the backcourt violation in his chat wrap today and agreed that if the guy had just walked into the backcourt and gotten the ball instead of panicking about it, then the call probably isn't made. I think the players should know the rules (and the player clearly didn't) and it brought out the worst in the ref.

[dcdevil2009]

if refs INCORRECTLY called all those charges as blocks, would we still continue to stand our ground because we expect the ref to do his job? doubtful. Bremmen covered the backcourt violation in his chat wrap today and agreed that if the guy had just walked into the backcourt and gotten the ball instead of panicking about it, then the call probably isn't made. I think the players should know the rules (and the player clearly didn't) and it brought out the worst in the ref.

If the refs incorrectly called all of the charges blocks, then it would be poor coaching/playing if we didn't adjust, but what if it was 30% of charges were called as blocks? The reason I thought it might be a bad analogy is because the block/charge call is made several times per game, while the recent examples of refs/players not knowing the rules or not making the correct calls have been in end game situations that happen relatively infrequently. You can make in game adjustments based on how a ref is calling the block/charge, but Butler-Pitt ending aside, you're rarely going to see multiple opportunities to make the same play/call in a game. My point was just that adjusting your play in the expectation of a bad call can hurt your team and when the ref is the one that blows a call he gets paid to make correctly, the head of officiating shouldn't be blaming the players for the refs' mistakes.

[calltheobvious]

I think this rule will change....becuase it doesn't make sense....

Personally I think its great that they're talking to the head of officiating so much, really brings a sense of accountability to the whole reffing scheme (as opposed to the MLB where they hide behind walls and pretend to be gods)

Its a shame he was straight up wrong on the inbounds rule though....embarrasing....but I think in bounds rules will be clarified next year, and the timing on the ball going out of bounds will be changed

Could you please clarify which Adams quote and which rule you're referring to here? I'm pretty sure that if the head of NCAA basketball officials had mucked up a rule interpretation in a nationally televised interview, it would have been written about. A lot. And I haven't seen anything on this today.

[uh_no]

Could you please clarify which Adams quote and which rule you're referring to here? I'm pretty sure that if the head of NCAA basketball officials had mucked up a rule interpretation in a nationally televised interview, it would have been written about. A lot. And I haven't seen anything on this today.

I don't have the quote in front of me, but adams said the ref was correct not to award a timeout after 4 seconds. I pulled up the rule book and looked through both the inbounds and timeout rules which I quoted earlied. There is a section on when a timeout cannot be granted and there was no reference to the said 4 second rule. Others on thic board agreed that it is in fact not the rule and adams got it wrong. Don't expect espn to do any actual reporting though...you can look through the rulebook online yourself if you wish

[calltheobvious]

I don't have the quote in front of me, but adams said the ref was correct not to award a timeout after 4 seconds. I pulled up the rule book and looked through both the inbounds and timeout rules which I quoted earlied. There is a section on when a timeout cannot be granted and there was no reference to the said 4 second rule. Others on thic board agreed that it is in fact not the rule and adams got it wrong. Don't expect espn to do any actual reporting though...you can look through the rulebook online yourself if you wish

I didn't see any Adams quotes on the five-second call. But I can guarantee you that, even if he did have some justification for the call, it was not that "the rule prevents the acknowledgement of a timeout after four seconds have elapsed."

Again, if he'd gotten the rule wrong on national TV, it would have made news. It didn't make news.

As a not-so-ancillary point, none of the studio guys immediately after the game even knew the rule. Initially, every last one of them was supporting the call based on the "four-second rule." So as far as they were concerned, there was no reason even to have Adams on camera for an explanation.

[WakeDevil]

To reply to what someone posted about my comment, I do not believe the officials are wearing those electronic devices in this event. I heard someone remark about this. That's why I say you have to allow for reaction time. If the official looks up and sees the clock running after he blows his whistle, then he can discuss adding time.

The "jeopardy" rule on inbounds plays was changed a while back. It seems the official or his defenders are saying he did allow for five seconds. That arm didn't go all the way out.

On another note, a timeout request can be verbal, something a lot of players don't seem to know.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

I hate how other leagues hide behind the rules mainly the MLB as well but the NCAA looks pretty bad after the past few weeks and I don't believe is getting nearly enough blame.
There were 2 situations where it appeared the ref didn't know the rule. The Texas/Zona game was just bad rules but as it stands now, the refs didn't do anything wrong. As the guy said, they could have just made sure and went to the monitor but they weren't required.
But on the inbounds play, it certainly appeared the ref thought you couldn't call it after 4.
And my biggest grievance is the backcourt violation which isn't getting much press. Sure he walked, but all he has to do is dribble and who knows if he heard the whistle and just stopped. The ref didn't know the rule and that is inexcusable as opposed to a missed call.
But I guess this is the fallout from the BE tournament where the refs are almost trying to make calls.

Does that 4 second rule exist or not? I swear it used to if it does not now.

[devilsadvocate85]

Unless I'm mistaken, I heard Andy Katz discussing the fact that the automatic clock stopping technology that we use in the ACC and many other major conferences (device attached to referee's belt/pants) is not used in the NCAA tournament and therefore the clock stops when the timekeeper hears the referee's whistle or see's the arm raised indicating a clock stoppage.

Now the obvious question -- WHY THE BLEEP DON'T THEY USE THE DEVICES IN THE NCAA TOURNEY?

[Newton_14]

I don't have the quote in front of me, but adams said the ref was correct not to award a timeout after 4 seconds. I pulled up the rule book and looked through both the inbounds and timeout rules which I quoted earlied. There is a section on when a timeout cannot be granted and there was no reference to the said 4 second rule. Others on thic board agreed that it is in fact not the rule and adams got it wrong. Don't expect espn to do any actual reporting though...you can look through the rulebook online yourself if you wish

I know you are right that it is no longer a rule. It was in fact a rule at one time though. Andy Katz referred to it Sunday Night. I searched via google to try to determine when the NCAA abandoned the rule, but could not find any specific year. The closest thing was a link that stated the no timeout after count gets to 4 seconds was removed around the same time the NCAA instituted the ability for the refs to go to the monitor to review game clock and shot clock issues.

I would be interested to know what year the NCAA canned that rule. Outside of someone in the NCAA clarifying it, not sure how we could find "rules that were removed and/or changed" from the official rulebook.

It is strange that Adams did not realize the rule had been removed as well. Bizzare!

[B-well]

I just looked at the play again a looked through the rule book (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf). (For those interested, Rule 2-12 (correctable errors), 2-13 (use of the monitor), and Rule 5 (scoring and timing) are all pertinent here. Rule 5-10 outlines when the clock is to be stopped, but every instance involves the official recognizing or granting a stoppage. The rule basically starts out by saying the clock "shall be stopped when an
official:" In this rule, there are no natural clock stoppages that occur within the game and only when the official stops it.

There are things in the correctable error and monitor rules that allow the clock to be reset, but only one that I see that specifically mentions resetting the clock to "the moment" something occurred. That is for an end game (clock reads zero before checking monitor) foul in which the rule specifically states that if a foul was called, the officials should reset the clock to when the foul occurred as opposed to when it was called.

The general rule for putting time back on the clock reads as follows:

"Determine the correct time to be placed back on the game clock
when the referee blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to
be stopped, and in his/her judgment time has elapsed before the
game clock stopped."

This rule applies to all situations including made baskets, timeouts, and fouls with any time left when the clock was stopped.

I just watched the Henson thing again on MMOD, and unfortunately all of the replays were during the studio show, so the only shot that is available is the live one. There are several problems in using this shot anyway. First is obviously that you can't get slow motion and the time between the ball hitting and the ref blowing the whistle/starting to signal is very very small. With the naked eye, I can't imagine that the ref was over half a second late, as .5 being left would indicate. The other issue with the live shot is that because of all the processing that the data has to go through, the TV clock (and the one on the ribbon lights and overhead scoreboard for that matter) is about 2-3 tenths late. Here is a photo of Hayward's last shot (http://www.thesportsbank.net/core/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gordon-hayward1.jpg) which conveniently illustrates this. As it is, it is really tough to tell without those replays that displayed the game clock what the proper time left would have been.

As for changing the rule, the committee for this meets every April after the season is over. The process can take varying amounts of time to complete for a rule depending on the importance, urgency, and impact. For example, rules adding or moving lines can take years to implement. They had initially talked about a charge circle before the 2010 season, but just got around to testing it during select in season tournaments this season, and a permanent line is likely still another year or two away. The rule allowing officials to go to the monitor for flagrant fouls and the enhanced penalty for elbows, however, were implemented immediately after they were brought up.

Before the ball left Hayweards hand, no matter how much time was left, Singler is on the floor, having been leveled by a Butler screen that should have been whistled by the ref. But, there is always the night when Dennard cleared out Buck Williams for Duke to win the ACC Championship.

Officiating is the last frontier of something.

[Indoor66]

Before the ball left Hayweards hand, no matter how much time was left, Singler is on the floor, having been leveled by a Butler screen that should have been whistled by the ref. But, there is always the night when Dennard cleared out Buck Williams for Duke to win the ACC Championship.

Officiating is the last frontier of something.

The last frontier of human frailty.