Page 14 of 27 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 521
  1. #261
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    I suspect the hand up the net would have been ruled "inadvertent" as it was over well before the ball dropped. The missed offensive interference will likely shame the refs through a post-season blackball (the only thing the NCAA can actually wield).

    -jk
    I don't believe "inadvertent" is a mitigating factor.

  2. #262
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Dur'm
    Quote Originally Posted by JetpackJesus View Post
    The biggest obstacle to that (other than the judgment call aspect), I think, is that a defensive goaltending situation does not necessarily result in a stoppage of play, which all of the other reviewable things I can think of do (I could be wrong about this, though). So do they review only when goaltending is called? What about a block that is actually an uncalled goaltend and play continues? Does the ref stop play to confirm they got it right? Maybe only called goaltends are reviewable? But that doesn't seem right.
    Either kind of interference, if called, is automatically a stop in play. For uncertain/uncalled interference, they could treat it the same way they do a two-/three-point basket: The refs signals to the board that they intend to review, but play is allowed to continue in the interim, or it could be coach's challenge like the restricted area call. Depending on exactly what happens after the interference - especially defensive - that may not be entirely fair, but I think it is more fair than the play being entirely unreviewable.

    I agree that it could be very hard to review some aspects of the rule, like the backboard slap situation. But whether or not the ball is in the cylinder when it is touched is pretty black-and-white.

  3. #263
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by BandAlum83 View Post
    I don't believe "inadvertent" is a mitigating factor.
    slapping the backboard is not a violation, only making it "vibrate"...now you could get into a technical argument about what "vibrate" is...since one could argue by brownian motion it's always "vibrating"

    but in any case, slapping the backboard is generally not considered enough to constitute making it "vibrate"
    1200. DDMF.

  4. #264
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Atlanta
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    slapping the backboard is not a violation, only making it "vibrate"...now you could get into a technical argument about what "vibrate" is...since one could argue by brownian motion it's always "vibrating"

    but in any case, slapping the backboard is generally not considered enough to constitute making it "vibrate"
    I believe jk was referring to the hand up through the hoop and grabbing the net the structure to vibrate as the inadvertent action, not the backboard slap.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by BandAlum83 View Post
    I believe jk was referring to the hand up through the hoop and grabbing the net the structure to vibrate as the inadvertent action, not the backboard slap.
    What the announcers said last night...is that this move was not interference in this case because it was over and done with before the ball made contact with the goal (either backboard or rim). Not sure if that's the right ruling, but that is the case here, and it was not called.

    To muddy up the final tap....FWIW...there are a few on the ESPN network (I watched today to get Duke UL commentary) who say when the LSU player FIRST touched the ball, it was mostly out of the cylinder...as he followed through a little, then the ball of course moved back into the cylinder. Just reporting the facts....

  6. #266
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by BandAlum83 View Post
    I believe jk was referring to the hand up through the hoop and grabbing the net the structure to vibrate as the inadvertent action, not the backboard slap.
    i should have responded to the original post, which was trying to make a case for it.

    IMO the refs can blow every call in a game if it means UK and UNC lose.
    1200. DDMF.

  7. #267
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    slapping the backboard is not a violation, only making it "vibrate"...now you could get into a technical argument about what "vibrate" is...since one could argue by brownian motion it's always "vibrating"

    but in any case, slapping the backboard is generally not considered enough to constitute making it "vibrate"
    I would suggest that Zion hitting the backboard is defacto enough to make it vibrate: if only from fear.

  8. #268
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    Either kind of interference, if called, is automatically a stop in play. For uncertain/uncalled interference, they could treat it the same way they do a two-/three-point basket: The refs signals to the board that they intend to review, but play is allowed to continue in the interim, or it could be coach's challenge like the restricted area call. Depending on exactly what happens after the interference - especially defensive - that may not be entirely fair, but I think it is more fair than the play being entirely unreviewable.

    I agree that it could be very hard to review some aspects of the rule, like the backboard slap situation. But whether or not the ball is in the cylinder when it is touched is pretty black-and-white.
    The way I understood the overturned call in the Duke game was that Coach K was allowed to challenge the charging call specifically because it was 1) during the last two minutes and 2) there was a stoppage of play. Without those two conditions, he could not have challenged. If he had lost the challenge, he would have forfeited a time out. (presumably Louisville had no such challenge option since they were out of time outs.) So if the rule is changed for goaltending, I would assume the same conditions would apply. If there is a non-call, there might not be a stoppage of play. It couldn’t be handled the way a two/three point review is handled because the coach has to challenge. Unless you are suggesting that all possible goaltending calls and non-calls should be reviewed.

  9. #269
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Honolulu
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    Either kind of interference, if called, is automatically a stop in play. For uncertain/uncalled interference, they could treat it the same way they do a two-/three-point basket: The refs signals to the board that they intend to review, but play is allowed to continue in the interim, or it could be coach's challenge like the restricted area call. Depending on exactly what happens after the interference - especially defensive - that may not be entirely fair, but I think it is more fair than the play being entirely unreviewable.

    I agree that it could be very hard to review some aspects of the rule, like the backboard slap situation. But whether or not the ball is in the cylinder when it is touched is pretty black-and-white.
    I don't think the 2pt/3pt thing is a good comparison. Unless the rule has changed, refs have to wait until the next media timeout to review whether a basket was a 2 or 3 until the final 4 minutes of a game, at which point they must immediately review such baskets. The delay in the first 36 minutes makes sense because the only thing that changes about the game state after the review is the amount of points on the board. The immediate review at the end of games makes sense because a dead ball occurs after every made basket, and a single point may dictate the way teams play.

    But allowing play to continue before reviewing an uncalled goaltending does not work because any basketball that happens between the questionable block and the eventual review may not count. If the review determines the block was actually a goaltend, anything that happened in the game between the goaltend and the review no longer counts because you have to reset the clock to the goaltend, award the points, and resume play from there.

    Having said all that, I realized as I typed this that I have been conflating goaltending (Art. 3) with basket interference (Art. 2). They are two separate rules, so my original concern might be moot. Perhaps the solution is to make basket interference reviewable and leave goaltending as an unreviewable call. I guess I will leave the first part of this comment since it explains why I wouldn't make goaltending reviewable.

    Thank goodness digital ink is so cheap because I just wasted a lot of it.

  10. #270
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Honolulu
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    The way I understood the overturned call in the Duke game was that Coach K was allowed to challenge the charging call specifically because it was 1) during the last two minutes and 2) there was a stoppage of play. Without those two conditions, he could not have challenged. If he had lost the challenge, he would have forfeited a time out. (presumably Louisville had no such challenge option since they were out of time outs.) So if the rule is changed for goaltending, I would assume the same conditions would apply. If there is a non-call, there might not be a stoppage of play. It couldn’t be handled the way a two/three point review is handled because the coach has to challenge. Unless you are suggesting that all possible goaltending calls and non-calls should be reviewed.
    Refs can initiate the review on their own in the last two minutes, or the coach can challenge. Was it officially stated anywhere that Coach K challenged the charge call? I didn't have sound when I was watching, and haven't read anything one way or the other today.

    Here's the replay rule for the restricted area (Rule 11-2.1.e.2):

    2. In the last two minutes of the second period and of any extra period(s),
    to determine if a secondary defender was inside or outside the
    Restricted Area Arc when an official has stopped the game and has
    made either a blocking call or a player control/charging call. A head
    coach may request a monitor review after a call has been made to
    determine if a secondary defender was inside or outside the Restricted
    Area. A timeout shall be charged to the coach if the original call is
    confirmed.

  11. #271
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by JetpackJesus View Post
    Refs can initiate the review on their own in the last two minutes, or the coach can challenge. Was it officially stated anywhere that Coach K challenged the charge call? I didn't have sound when I was watching, and haven't read anything one way or the other today.
    They did show him talking to the ref and drawing a circle with his hands, so I assume he was asking them to look at it. It seems really vague what the rules are on when a coach can challenge something. I like the rule in the NFL where you get a certain number of challenges.

    As far as why basket interference isn't reviewable, here is my take: the rules committee wants to set limits on how many things are reviewable. They don't want EVERYTHING to be reviewable, because then we would spend all day long going to replays. Every single play there's probably a half dozen things happening that could be reviewed - guys jockeying for rebounding position, pulling on jerseys, etc. So they limit the list of things that are reviewable to only a few types of calls, typically ones that are really difficult for the refs to keep track of (like if the clock started late and they have to calculate how much time ran off). I actually thought that in previous years they could review the block/charge call to determine if the defender was in position, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. Plays where there is already a stoppage of play, like determining who a ball went out of bounds off of, are also natural fits for replay.

    With regards to a player's feet behind behind the three point line or inside the charge circle, I think it's difficult for the ref to see that in real time because they are not looking down at the player's feet. They are looking up at the ball and at the player's hands. So it needs to be reviewable because it's easy to miss. But in the case of basket interference, that should be an easy call to make. The ref is already looking at the players' hands and arms and at the rim. So that would be the argument for why it's not reviewable. Just my opinion.

  12. #272
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rent free in tarheels’ heads
    Things not developing well for Kansas...

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...asketball/amp/
    “Coach said no 3s.” - Zion on The Block

  13. #273
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    Things not developing well for Kansas...

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...asketball/amp/
    As a reminder, please check out our NCAA Compliance post and links.

    -jk

  14. #274
    What do you do when your coach bagels the conference schedule?

  15. #275
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by JetpackJesus View Post
    Refs can initiate the review on their own in the last two minutes, or the coach can challenge. Was it officially stated anywhere that Coach K challenged the charge call? I didn't have sound when I was watching, and haven't read anything one way or the other today.
    I believe I heard the announcers say that Coach K did challenge the call. Then they spoke about the fact that he would lose a timeout if he were wrong. Although in real time one of the announcers immediately questioned whether the Loo player was inside the arc.

    Thanks for including the actually rule. That’s helpful!

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by Tooold View Post
    I believe I heard the announcers say that Coach K did challenge the call. Then they spoke about the fact that he would lose a timeout if he were wrong. Although in real time one of the announcers immediately questioned whether the Loo player was inside the arc.

    Thanks for including the actually rule. That’s helpful!
    They may have been speaking metaphorically. I have certainly seen K "challenge" many calls with complaints. To my knowledge there isn't any official system in place for that also emcompassing a timeout penalty. In my lifetime, the best method for challenging calls is to scream dirty words at the television.

  17. #277
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    So what's to stop a coach from "challenging" a call he knows is correct, just to give himself a free timeout?

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    . In my lifetime, the best method for challenging calls is to scream dirty words at the television.
    You too?

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    Things not developing well for Kansas...

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...asketball/amp/
    How many players have they had to withhold from competition or have been suspended by the NCAA under Self? Off the top of my head, there's De Sousa, Billy Preston, Cliff Alexander, Carlton Bragg, and Chieck Diallo. That's a lot of smoke for one program. And only now is KU concerned about an NCAA investigation?

  20. #280
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sea Island, GA

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    They may have been speaking metaphorically. I have certainly seen K "challenge" many calls with complaints. To my knowledge there isn't any official system in place for that also emcompassing a timeout penalty. In my lifetime, the best method for challenging calls is to scream dirty words at the television.
    Quote Originally Posted by JetpackJesus View Post
    Refs can initiate the review on their own in the last two minutes, or the coach can challenge. Was it officially stated anywhere that Coach K challenged the charge call? I didn't have sound when I was watching, and haven't read anything one way or the other today.

    Here's the replay rule for the restricted area (Rule 11-2.1.e.2):

    2. In the last two minutes of the second period and of any extra period(s),
    to determine if a secondary defender was inside or outside the
    Restricted Area Arc when an official has stopped the game and has
    made either a blocking call or a player control/charging call. A head
    coach may request a monitor review after a call has been made to
    determine if a secondary defender was inside or outside the Restricted
    Area. A timeout shall be charged to the coach if the original call is
    confirmed.
    See the official rules thanks to JetpackJesus. A coach can request a monitor review...during last two minutes (if time has been stopped) and will lose a timeout if the original call is confirmed. I am pretty confident that the commentators were not speaking metaphorically. They seemed to say that K did officially ask for the review, and it appeared that way from what I could see. Of course, the commentators aren’t always paying close attention to the game

Similar Threads

  1. 2018 International Basketball Thread
    By awhom111 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 12-17-2018, 11:43 PM
  2. 2018-19 Basketball catch all thread
    By MarkD83 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 11-19-2018, 01:14 AM
  3. 2018 Basketball Recruiting Thread
    By Duke95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2886
    Last Post: 08-09-2018, 07:53 PM
  4. NCAA 2018 Tournament Map
    By pfrduke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 04-03-2018, 01:31 AM
  5. NCAA 2018 Sweet Sixteen/Elite Eight
    By brevity in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 03-25-2018, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •