What? Did you watch the same replay as everyone else? Of course he turned around and started to advance. Seems pretty clear. The reason it doesn't look like a basketball move is because he traveled all to hell and back. [laughing]
That wasnt a walk..... I checked it on DVR. He came down both feet at the same time and chose his pivot foot to be his left foot......... he moved his right foot to make a move which should of been allowed and was in the process of dribbling before he moved the what should of been the pivot foot.
What it was though...... was a make up call for what should of been a travel or foul on Gabriel that lead to the Technical on Roy.
Man it nust be terrible to be you an IU fan obsessed with UK go back to INDIANA please
It may have been discussed in this thread but did berry walk at the end of the game when hump contested his shot
is it considered traveling when you take 3 steps after gathering the ball? Why yes.... yes it is
Since you are such an experienced official, I am certain you can tell us when the timeout is granted, right? You know it is not granted when the player calls it, but is granted when the clock operator sees the referee signal the timeout. They gave him 0.3 seconds too much time when they reviewed. Typical ruling that happens when dealing with the cheating UNC***** team.
Traveled to hell and back? A bit of an exaggeration maybe? It's a bang bang play and it wasn't any kind of basketball move. He did not turn around either. Started to advance? Really? Um......
Last edited:
I'm watching the play where he caught the ball, and then turned around with both feet off the ground like he was about to start running down the floor, noticed the UK defender right there, and then immediately turned back around asking for a timeout.
I thought the same. It did look a little awkward though because we moved his shoulders/trunk some before he landed making it look like he was maybe stepping.
Different call...we are talking about the call against Gabriel that they DID call a travel
Come on man, take your blue goggles off for a second and try watching that play objectively. Youre exaggerating everything.
First off, every other player on the court is calling TO before he even gets the ball. So, it's obviously known that UNC was going to call a TO in that situation and had likely already informed the officials of that plan.
Second, his head is turned back around towards the official before his second foot even hits the ground from his initial jump and definitely before he has fully completed his landing. He did not catch the ball, turn and look at the UK defender, then turn back around and call TO. That's not what happened bro, Im sorry. It was a bang bang play. How can you dispute that?
He was verbally calling TO before any walk occurred and plus his teammates were all calling TO as well. If youre going to make this big a fuss over THAT play, youre going to be very busy complaining. I've given you an explanation on why it was not called. You can disagree with it if you want but you would be wrong. It was a correct no call, period. Anyone, other than some UK fans apparently, would agree and see the logic.
Maybe someone else addressed it on page 3-4, I didn't read that far but another NC player was calling for timeout as the ball was caught. He was in front of the U.K. bench and signaling toward the trailing ref and it was before the shuffle of the feet.
The player with the ball does not have to be the one to ask for time out.
The player with the ball does not have to be the one to ask for time out.
As a former official (High school and D-2 college) I am sure that the official was told that UNC wanted a TO as soon as the ball was received inbounds therefore as soon as he makes the catch you are giving them the TO.
The clock was handled correctly also. The clock does not start until the ball touches someone inbounds. The mechanical time it takes to start/stop the clock was longer than the time it takes to simply catch the ball thus time was put back on.
Same with the ball going out of bounds. The clock started with the first touch but it continued to run for a fraction of a second after the ball hit out of bounds.
Like every other UK fan I wanted the clock to run but I can honestly say that looking at the replays that the clock was handled properly.
Good Lord. A dribble takes a second...they clearly didn't want to dribble the ball up the court. The player is looking for the official to call the TO, not deciding if to dribble or not.
Again, in that situation you are telling the official that you want a TO as soon as it comes inbounds BEFORE the play happens. The official is hearing "Time Out!" as the ball is in the air. You are going to grant that TO on the catch.
Had the TO not been granted, yes it would have been a walk. The TO was granted no the catch.
Technically, it is granted when the official raises their hand with the whistle, has nothing to do with the clock operator.
There you have it from the man who knows everything but doesn't have the integrity to pay off when he loses a bet.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
I can tell you with certainty that you cannot call a timeout while in the act of committing a violation. Why do you think they stopped allowing timeouts to he called while in the act of stepping out of bounds?
It has nothing to do with him verbalizing the TO. That's not the problem. What is a problem is you have to have clear control of the ball before you call TO. The NCAA specifically made a rule a few years back that you cannot call a TO while jumping in the air (so like jumping out of bounds you can't call TO anymore).
The same rule applies here. He was jumping in the air when he caught it and was trying (along with teammates) to call TO. Clearly traveled upon landing, and should've been called as such. TO can't be granted until he's established firm possession of the ball. Just because he was verbalizing it doesn't mean he had possession and should be granted it.
Missed call by the refs and game should've been over then.
Weird how two people can watch the same play and draw such different conclusions . To me , the ref isnt supposed to guess or mind read or suppose anything . You watch the play , you make the call . You dont simply guess , well NC really needed that time out there so I'll assume he wants one . He panicked . He flat out panicked . And traveled . Hell the guy never did even attempt to signal TO . Until he hopped around like Peter Cottontail .. LOL . Now what he said as he hopped ? I dont know , I just know NC went from end to side to the other end to the other side in 1.7 seconds , and still got a shot off .
Last edited:
It doesn't require a mind read for the coach, team captain or any player on the court to go to the official before the ball is put into play and say, "Hey ref, we want a TO as soon as the ball is caught inbounds". That's what coaches do. You make your intent known. Not so sure why that is so hard to understand?
As for the clock, the clock doesn't start until the ball is touched in bounds. How long does it take to catch the ball? I just started and stopped my stopwatch 6 times with less than 1 full second expiring off the clock.
It that a rule or just accepted thought process ? You can " request " a time out and get one WITHOUT any signal ?
I'm not asking " can a coach request a time out when ball is inbounded " I'm asking is there a rule providing for this ? Or does the rule state a player has to make a signal with hands or verbal with mouth ?
The timeout is granted as soon as it is recognized by the official. Score-keep has nadda to do with it.
Have this happen all the time. Coach will say, "as soon as the ball crosses mid-court, I want a TO". Which is fine. But I remind the coach as well...."still verbalized, or signal, OK"? Happens quite often.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. You cannot call a timeout in the air IF you are A) going OOB, or B) going into the back court. That rule doesn't apply here.
Also, if he didn't have control, then how did he travel? I mean you're right----control is needed to get a TO. But it's also needed to travel.
True, but if you are Roy Williams you have to take 30 minutes out of the next practice and TEACH your players how to call a timeout. The UNC player did EVERYTHING wrong. In a loud arena, there is no guarantee the ref will hear a verbal signal. UNC players need to understand that they way to do this is to catch the ball, freeze in place and call a timeout with both mouth and hand motions.
The ref very well could have called a travel. Players need to understand that that there is a way to do it and a way NOT to do it. UNC gave us a clinic on how not to do it.
Yep! And had it been called, we couldn't say he didn't do it or it shouldn't have been called. Same thing applied to John Wall when he was here. He would step over the line and pass the ball from out of bounds. I remember many many many posters saying that this would come back to bite us if he didn't quit doing it.
No. I felt by what I saw, the TO was granted before the walk. Know this----the whistle doesn't make the play dead. It's(play) already dead. The whistle just indicates something has happened. What I mean by that is this:
Once an official see's a violation, foul, etc, etc....the play is over. The whistle simply stops things. So once the official acknowledge the TO request, what happens after that is irrelevant.
It doesn't determine when to make the right call. And I didn't say that. I said, to make that call, at that time of the game, you as an official better be damn sure you're confident a travel occurred. A non basketball example:
Winning run at second base. Base hit. Run scores. Defense appeals runner missed third. If you're going to call that guy out, you had better be 100% sure he missed the base. Have no doubt. Not 90% sure. Not 95% sure. But 100% sure, AND convinced he missed the base. Because your call is about to change the game.
Same with the scenario Saturday. I'm not saying don't make that call because of the magnitude, or how much time is left. I'm saying make sure you are very confident a travle occurred. And it wasn't that blatant. It was bang-bang. And that's why I said---"you ain't getting that call, at that moment in the game".
Not Mr. Higgins. Much better looking.
imp:Lets do that, Jarms. Lets go revisit threads pertaining to UK, and see how my positive to negative post weigh out.
-Skal/UK not going to be that good thread, created by MattJones. Remember that? I sure as hell do. I defended the **** out of Skal, and Kentucky. Probably don't remember that do ya?
-Briscoe thread- Called him an elite finisher. Great rebounder. A ******** bulldog, that I'd take in Bloomington yesterday. Doubt you recall that one either.
-UCLA thread: Pretty recent, so maybe there's a chance you recall this one.
- Calipari has underachieved thread: Remember this one? The one where I said, "If underachieving is going to four final fours, in 6 years, could you please sens his underachieving *** to Bloomington".
Have I taken shots at UK? yep. Sure the **** have. It's what rivals do. Adukts can usually handle this. Maybe this is a shortcoming of yours. IDK. But if you cant handle it, I suggest you step away from the adult table, and find a table more suitable for your feelings.
Because here's the thing. I've grown up cheering on UK basketball since I was 8 years old. The team, its tradition and 99% of the fans are great and second to none. It's those like you that make some despise UK with your--"hater" BS all the time. Damn near half of my family are Big Blue. My wife and her family are Big Blue. My brother has lived in the Lexington area his entire life. Hell Jarms I've probably been to more ROAD games of UK, then you've been to home games. And I wouldn't doubt I;ve had a rooting interest in UK a lot longer than you have. And probably know and understand the history of Kentucky basktball quite a bit better.
Have a good day, and I'll be looking forward to revisiting that post history.
Not Mr. Higgins. Much better looking.
Higgins does not look. He just makes up stuff.