Columbus Dispatch: “He jumped inbounds”

[wheezer]

what some are not understanding is that the rule depends on why the player goes out of bounds......

If it is determined that the player went out intentionally, he cannot be the first to receive the ball

If the player went out due to momentum, and I would guess, forced out....he can be the first to get the ball, even with just one foot established on the floor..

see part b

so, the argument should center on WHY the player went out of bounds, not the establishment of one or two feet


1. A player who steps out of bounds under the player’s own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.


b. A player whose momentum causes that player to go out of bounds may be the first to touch the ball inbounds if that player reestablishes one foot inbounds prior to touching the ball.

 

[wheezer]

This is a moot issue. The ball handler was out of bounds prior to the shot. End of story!!

Players who go out of bounds can legally rejoin the play and touch the ball once they have both feet back on the court.

See my post just above..... it all depends on why the player goes out of bounds....it is subject to the opinion of the ref

my opinion is that it should be a turnover, but the refs can hide behind the part b part of the rule, if they want to make an excuse

 

[zappaa]

Not unlike the Notre Dame guy going out of bounds to defend the inbound last year.
The ref who would make the out of bounds call had his eyes everywhere but feet and OB line

 

[RUnTeX]

WHY the player went out of bounds

He drifted in order to maintain a semblance of a passing lane along the sideline but not realizing he was well beyond it. It was of his own volition, not forced or momentum. His positioning ending up OOB was a result of McConnell forcing the dribbler tighter to the sideline (who stepped on the sideline and which should have been a TO right there before he even passed it).

I agree that the refs can try to hide behind the rule about why or why not the shooter was OOB in the interim.

 

[fatsam98]

We got screwed. If you disagree then you aren't reading the rule carefully.

 

[wheezer]

He drifted in order to maintain a semblance of a passing lane along the sideline but not realizing he was well beyond it. It was of his own volition, not forced or momentum. His positioning ending up OOB was a result of McConnell forcing the dribbler tighter to the sideline (who stepped on the sideline and which should have been a TO right there before he even passed it).

I agree that the refs can try to hide behind the rule about why or why not the shooter was OOB in the interim.

I was just trying to clear up some misconceptions by some here as to the rule

watching live, the angle of view of the play did not show how the shooter went out of bounds...... my dvd recording of the bad angle had a skip at the critical moment for some reason......

as a result, we got screwed, and as you and I agree, they can use the momentum excuse to cover their asses....

If there was an absolute rule, that a player cannot be the first to touch the ball when having been out of bounds, they would have had to blown the play dead, for sure

 

[BillyC80]

Not unlike the Notre Dame guy going out of bounds to defend the inbound last year.
The ref who would make the out of bounds call had his eyes everywhere but feet and OB line

I had totally forgotten about that. Damn.

 

[Booty Maximus]

Ohio St/Michigan benefits from "questionable" officiating? I am SHOCKED I tell you....SHOCKED!

 

[Loyal_2RU]

Players who go out of bounds can legally rejoin the play and touch the ball once they have both feet back on the court.

In the NBA.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The business . Reporters covering road games is not a new idea.

If you were running the company that the beat writers work for I highly doubt you would have sent them to Columbus.

 

[bac2therac]

If you were running the company that the beat writers work for I highly doubt you would have sent them to Columbus.

Julie sitting in her realtors office chair getting the last laugh on the awful press

 

[Plum Street]

If you were running the company that the beat writers work for I highly doubt you would have sent them to Columbus.

Whatever fine I don’t run the company . The point is you can take their game and post game analysis as seriously as guys on this board that watched on their couches. It’s the same thing . It’s important for the reporter to be there . Otherwise , they wouldn’t bother going to home games either

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I was just trying to clear up some misconceptions by some here as to the rule

watching live, the angle of view of the play did not show how the shooter went out of bounds...... my dvd recording of the bad angle had a skip at the critical moment for some reason......

as a result, we got screwed, and as you and I agree, they can use the momentum excuse to cover their asses....

If there was an absolute rule, that a player cannot be the first to touch the ball when having been out of bounds, they would have had to blown the play dead, for sure

No - they really can’t use momentum as an excuse as Holden wasn’t even running. He was side pedaling and there was no defender near enough to him to say he went out to avoid colliding. He may not have realized how close he was to the sideline until his foot stepped out but he made a conscious decision not to go the other way. That’s not momentum. And then once his foot stepped on the line, he used out of bounds territory to create the play for himself as it was only once he was out of bounds that he succeeded in creating space.

 

[wheezer]

No - they really can’t use momentum as an excuse as Holden wasn’t even running. He was side pedaling and there was no defender near him. He may not have realized how close he was to the sideline until his foot stepped out but he made a conscious decision not to go the other way. That’s not momentum. And then once his foot stepped on the line, he used out of bounds territory to create the play for himself as it was only once he was out of bounds and indefensible that he succeeded in creating space.

enough people have said it was not momentum so I will take that as fact..... again, I have not seen a replay that shows his move out of bounds...

 

[Shelby65]

Clearly, by the rulebook Rutgers should have won the game. But rulebooks don't make the calls, referees do. There are many factors which impact calls contrary to rules:

1. Star treatment
2. Makeup calls
3. Unspoken rule to call ticky tack fouls on reserve players to balance fouls
4. Swallowing the whistle / letting the players decide the outcome in the final seconds
5. Positioning and focus....was the trailing ref more focused on foul Y/N than feet, or focused on the clock, etc.?



#4 happened, and probably #5 too. The ref knows he botched it. Bad break but not intentional.

 

[hbbsm713]

enough people have said it was not momentum so I will take that as fact..... again, I have not seen a replay that shows his move out of bounds...

Here you go…

 

[wheezer]

Here you go…

View embedded media

thanks
someone else just posted the same video on another thread for me....this absolutely shows we were screwed.....

 

[zappaa]

Clearly, by the rulebook Rutgers should have won the game. But rulebooks don't make the calls, referees do. There are many factors which impact calls contrary to rules:

1. Star treatment
2. Makeup calls
3. Unspoken rule to call ticky tack fouls on reserve players to balance fouls
4. Swallowing the whistle / letting the players decide the outcome in the final seconds
5. Positioning and focus....was the trailing ref more focused on foul Y/N than feet, or focused on the clock, etc.



#4 happened, and probably #5 too. The ref knows he botched it. Bad break but not intentional.

Through it all the Ref wasn’t watching feet or OB line, he missed it
Simple as that

 

[zappaa]

Costs money to go to Columbus.

I don’t know if it costs the paper much money if college is like the pros.
In professional sports, beat writers ride on the team plane and the club puts them up in the team hotel

 

[PiscatawayMike]

https://sports.yahoo.com/tanner-holdens-buzzer-beating-3-110451681.html

 

[Eagleton96]

Whatever fine I don’t run the company . The point is you can take their game and post game analysis as seriously as guys on this board that watched on their couches. It’s the same thing . It’s important for the reporter to be there . Otherwise , they wouldn’t bother going to home games either

The difference is we are biased fans watching through our scarlet colored glasses. They are journalists that are, for all their faults, generally more objective. Of course we think we got robbed. Nobody would listen to us. If the journos say it also then people that didn't see it themselves believe it.

 

[zappaa]

https://sports.yahoo.com/tanner-holdens-buzzer-beating-3-110451681.html

The fact it isn’t reviewable is the debacle, Refs miss shit all the time.
If you put the all 3 refs on a lie detector it’s my bet not one of them saw the Holden was OB

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

At any other point in the game, I could understand the call not being reviewable. In this case, Holden first caught the pass with exactly one second on the clock though. If he was going to get whistled for the turnover it would’ve happened with time expiring anyway.

 

[RU Golfer]

Here is a writeup of rule 9-3. It is a bit vague and left to interpretation on whether the player voluntarily went out of bounds or not.

https://www.referee.com/leaving-the-court-has-consequences/

 

[kupuna133]

He was either in or out, if he’s in the air he’s inbounds.
The reestablishment rule has to be reviewable if it in fact is the rule

That's not how it works. Until he hits the court with 2 feet he is still out of bounds.

 

[LeapinLou]

I know half of you don't even take a minute to look unless it's posted here, but both Carino and Fonseca have several articles up about the game/incident.

Dave - I stared at the wall from 9:15 PM to 1 AM last night. I can only imagine how you must feel right now. Sorry man.

 

[nirrad]

The bottom line is that the refs should have looked at the replay like any other close call. F-that the Commissioner and Hobbs need to have a conversation and the win should be reversed period! I know that it is not going to happen but hell it is worth a try.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I don’t know if it costs the paper much money if college is like the pros.
In professional sports, best writers ride on the team plane and the club puts them up in the team hotel

I doubt that happens, but you never know. They also covr more than Rutgers basketball.

 

[zappaa]

That's not how it works. Until he hits the court with 2 feet he is still out of bounds.

My point is the refs did not see him out of bounds to even make reestablishment relevant in their minds…they missed it.
The debacle remains it not reviewable

 

[zappaa]

I doubt that happens, but you never know. They also covr more than Rutgers basketball.

It’s whomever the paper chooses to send.
Team plane, hotel…no cost to paper

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

The bottom line is that the refs should have looked at the replay like any other close call. F-that the Commissioner and Hobbs need to have a conversation and the win should be reversed period! I know that it is not going to happen but hell it is worth a try.

Most close calls shouldn’t get reviewed. Fouls and traveling violations go uncalled all the time. Players are and should be expected to play on until the whistle blows. This is different though because a whistle wasn’t going to blow just by Holden going out of bounds.

We lost because of good defensive basketball IQ. That’s the problem here. A defender (in this case Mag) SHOULD assume that once a guy voluntarily steps out of bounds (in this case with exactly 2.7 seconds left on the game clock) that this player is no longer a threat to attempt the game winner based on the rule. Good basketball IQ is why Holden was open.

 

[BillyC80]

My point is the refs did not see him out of bounds to even make reestablishment relevant in their minds…they missed it.
The debacle remains it not reviewable

This. The rules need to change to allow a play like that to be reviewed.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Is that what the refs are saying? They didn’t see Holden go out of bounds at all?

 

[kupuna133]

My point is the refs did not see him out of bounds to even make reestablishment relevant in their minds…they missed it.
The debacle remains it not reviewable

Understood.

Trail ref responsibility is the ball handler. Other refs have off ball responsibility broken down to sector. This call was not missed by the trail ref that is in camera, it was missed by the ref on the baseline in front of OSU bench.

 

[RUPete]

I'll be honest I didn't even know the rule about being first to touch ball after out of bounds.

What's the football rule for wr?

Same in football.

 

[rubs]

Players who go out of bounds can legally rejoin the play and touch the ball once they have both feet back on the court.

Not true if not forced out of bounds he cannot be the first to touch the ball.

 

[zappaa]

Is that what the refs are saying? They didn’t see Holden go out of bounds at all?

Of course they didn’t, and you’ll never get clarification from any of those 3.

 

[zappaa]

Understood.

Trail ref responsibility is the ball handler. Other refs have off ball responsibility broken down to sector. This call was not missed by the trail ref that is in camera, it was missed by the ref on the baseline in front of OSU bench.

Where was that Refs eyes on the replay?

 

[kupuna133]

Where was that Refs eyes on the replay?

Not where they are supposed to be. I agree with you.

 

[zappaa]

Not where they are supposed to be. I agree with you.

F’kr never saw it🤣