Aren't the Referees supposed to review the final play to see if the game clock started on time and the shot was released before time ran out?

[RCBeta79]

Are the Referees supposed to review the final play to see if the game clock started on time and the shot was released before time ran out?

Does anyone know if this is the rule in the Big Ten?
If so, then the referees missed this call as well.

 

[ScarletDave]

Good question and I was thinking the same thing. They review shot clock violations etc. and other clock stoppages during the game .. add time, take time away, etc all the time so I’m sure there is some rule that it can’t happen when it actually literally decides a game result but it’s fine if it’s 17 minutes left in the first half or 16:58

 

[Scangg]

Yea that piece should be reviewable isn't it? It's just not a non stop sh!t show. It's a complete and utter collapse by the refs. Inexcusable to be this bad at your job

 

[ScarletWalk11]

I have seen the refs break out a stop watch while watching the replay in situations similar to this, so yes I believe they should have done that here. I might try to time it myself when I get a chance.

 

[goru7]

I have making this great point in other threads. When Caleb missed the second foul shot with 5.0 seconds the clock didn’t move for 1-1.5 seconds. The shot never gets attempted as the passer would have still had the ball in his hands whenever the buzzer went off. Although the 2 out of bounds calls are missed calls and not reviewable , a clock situation is definitely reviewable. That it did not happen is almost worse than the other 2 missed calls

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Well as it is - he released the ball at 0.4 seconds.

 

[goru7]

I have seen the refs break out a stop watch while watching the replay in situations similar to this, so yes I believe they should have done that here. I might try to time it myself when I get a chance.

Already did it and 5 seconds elapsed when ball is still in point guard’s hands

 

[richthedentist]

I have making this great point in other threads. When Caleb missed the second foul shot with 5.0 seconds the clock didn’t move for 1-1.5 seconds. The shot never gets attempted as the passer would have still had the ball in his hands whenever the buzzer went off. Although the 2 out of bounds calls are missed calls and not reviewable , a clock situation is definitely reviewable. That it did not happen is almost worse than the other 2 missed calls

There were 3 times where the clock didn't start fast enough or was stopped too fast should have been reviewed and your right he would have never gotten the shot off

 

[RU848789]

As I said in the thread I just posted on the B1G contacting Pike, until now I hadn't had a chance to look at the time elapsed from the missed 2nd Caleb FT being rebounded by OSU to the time when the clock started up and I just analyzed it very closely and the clock froze at 5.0 seconds for about 0.7-0.8 seconds after the rebounder touched the ball (which is when the clock starts on a missed FT). The video below shows all of the players and the clock, making the analysis fairly easy.

Then if one looks at the winning shot, it was released with 0.6-0.7 seconds left. Would they have waved it off if they had reviewed the clock being started late? Would've been close and by my analysis should've been waved off. Also, clock issues in an endgame play are absolutely reviewable, unlike the OSU player stepping out of bounds before passing the ball to Holden for the winning shot and, of course, Holden voluntarily stepping OOB and then being the first person to touch the ball after being OOB, which is an absolute violation, by rule. Still sucks a day later.

 

[jerseybird]

As I said in the thread I just posted on the B1G contacting Pike, until now I hadn't had a chance to look at the time elapsed from the missed 2nd Caleb FT being rebounded by OSU to the time when the clock started up and I just analyzed it very closely and the clock froze at 5.0 seconds for about 0.7-0.8 seconds after the rebounder touched the ball (which is when the clock starts on a missed FT). The video below shows all of the players and the clock, making the analysis fairly easy.

Then if one looks at the winning shot, it was released with 0.6-0.7 seconds left. Would they have waved it off if they had reviewed the clock being started late? Would've been close and by my analysis should've been waved off. Also, clock issues in an endgame play are absolutely reviewable, unlike the OSU player stepping out of bounds before passing the ball to Holden for the winning shot and, of course, Holden voluntarily stepping OOB and then being the first person to touch the ball after being OOB, which is an absolute violation, by rule. Still sucks a day later.

View embedded media

There is a reaction time factor involved in starting the clock. The ball has to be touched by the rebounder and then the button is hit. The timing sequence looks about right to me. The clock start is never instantaneous.

 

[RU848789]

There is a reaction time factor involved in starting the clock. The ball has to be touched by the rebounder and then the button is hit. The timing sequence looks about right to me. The clock start is never instantaneous.

It's a fair point, but the clock shouldn't have started after Thornton caught the pass from the rebounder, so clearly it started late. The question is how late and maybe when refs review such sequences, they assume a reaction time factor - I don't know.

 

[jerseybird]

It's a fair point, but the clock shouldn't have started after Thornton caught the pass from the rebounder, so clearly it started late. The question is how late and maybe when refs review such sequences, they assume a reaction time factor - I don't know.

Thornton gets his hands on the ball at about 4.8 secs. I stopped and started the video a few times. I don't think there is anything incorrect about this which could be overturned in a review anyway.

 

[Shell21]

i haven’t seen this brought up but the passing angle is made easier because he is out of bounds and can catch it clean and step into the shot more cleanly. If he was inbounds there is no guarantee the pass even gets through because of the way Mag is defending him. If he does get it through the pass may be slightly behind him since now he as at least a few feet to the left . just look at how mag is defending him here

 

[Kbee3]

I guess that's what they call home cooking.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

Refs running off in that situation aka Burr and Higgins is all you got to know. They wanted no part in the fracking up they created.
Gonna be long past my death before Rutgers ever gets the benefits in this league vs the core teams who own it.

 

[OntheBanks]

First of all the rule should not be when the ball left the hand. It should be when the ball is completely through the basket rim. Cameras at the rim would show if that occurs. Hell they can tell if there is a speck of green between a shoe and the sideline when a football player is thought to be out of bounds.
And most importantly, any shots in the last 3 seconds of a half or end of regulation should automatically be reviewed.

 

[RCBeta79]

As I said in the thread I just posted on the B1G contacting Pike, until now I hadn't had a chance to look at the time elapsed from the missed 2nd Caleb FT being rebounded by OSU to the time when the clock started up and I just analyzed it very closely and the clock froze at 5.0 seconds for about 0.7-0.8 seconds after the rebounder touched the ball (which is when the clock starts on a missed FT). The video below shows all of the players and the clock, making the analysis fairly easy.

Then if one looks at the winning shot, it was released with 0.6-0.7 seconds left. Would they have waved it off if they had reviewed the clock being started late? Would've been close and by my analysis should've been waved off. Also, clock issues in an endgame play are absolutely reviewable, unlike the OSU player stepping out of bounds before passing the ball to Holden for the winning shot and, of course, Holden voluntarily stepping OOB and then being the first person to touch the ball after being OOB, which is an absolute violation, by rule. Still sucks a day later.

View embedded media

Seems reasonable there could have been a problem with the clock or clock operator.

 

[wheezer]

Already did it and 5 seconds elapsed when ball is still in point guard’s hands

Does the clock start from when the ball hits the rim or when first touched by a player?

 

[GORU2014]

The clock start isn’t a great complaint here. I’d be shocked to ever see them overturn a basket based on that. The real issue is poor positioning and staring into space instead of watching the feet of two players near or over the sideline.

 

[rudad02]

I guess that's what they call home cooking.

I posted in the game thread that if the game is tight coming down the stretch "watch out for the Zebras". No one responded. Boys need to listen to Grandpa.

 

[lloyde dobler]

Seems reasonable there could have been a problem with the clock or clock operator.

The clock is operated by one of the officials who touches a remote device on his belt

 

[shields]

Those refs I think are doing North carolina game today.

 

[wheezer]

I don't think there is anything incorrect about this which could be overturned in a review anyway.

Basketball should change to what football does
Football looks at all aspects of a play

Is the knee down, did he step out, cross the goal ?
They review all this in one play

Here, basketball could have overturned the basket with the shooter being out of bounds upon review

 

[colbert17]

There is a reaction time factor involved in starting the clock

Many years ago this was known as "natural lag". The clock is started and stopped by a human, not a computer.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

SInce the official response from the B1G mentions only how the shooter was out of bounds.. I think that should mean that the play WAS reviewable just like they would review if he was behind the 3-point line. It would not need for there to have been a whistle.

Now, I was under the impression that the main point was that the player making the pass had stepped out before doing so... and that, because it was not whistled, would NOT be reviewable.

refs really screwed the pooch.

 

[RCBeta79]

SInce the official response from the B1G mentions only how the shooter was out of bounds.. I think that should mean that the play WAS reviewable just like they would review if he was behind the 3-point line. It would not need for there to have been a whistle.

Now, I was under the impression that the main point was that the player making the pass had stepped out before doing so... and that, because it was not whistled, would NOT be reviewable.

refs really screwed the pooch.

This is a great point, The passer stepped out of bounds.

So, is a player stepping out of bounds before passing reviewable?

 

[SirPerceval]

Those refs do a crap load of RU games - will be interested to see how they are welcomed to the RAC next time.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

This is a great point, The passer stepped out of bounds.

So, is a player stepping out of bounds before passing reviewable?

Nope.

Neither is todays where teh guy who saved it did so illegally after stepping out of bounds then being the first to touch the ball. But tonight at least we were behind and would have to score for the outcome to have been different.

My beef today was the way SHU was allowed to thug it up while Rutgers gat called for touch fouls and sometimes just WRONG fouls.. SHU goes over teh top but the guy they hit gets called for the foul? What kind of nonsense was that? Well.. the same kind of nonsense we always got from Big East refs.

In the OSU game you have a scoring play where the scorer was out of bounds. I expect THAT is/was reviewable.

But refs missing someone who stepped out of bounds with the ball? Not reviewable. But if they mistakenly blew the whistle and called someone out who was NOT.. that IS reviewable because the whistle was blown.

Messed up. Give the coaches a challenge "flag" to call for full video review of ANYTHING. 2 flags for the game, if you are correct twice, you get a third. Wrong and you lose a timeout... and the refs have an option to say they cannot tell and let you keep the timeout, but not reverse their call/no-call.