Question about inbound pass defender against PSU?

[zappaa]

If the referee was doing his job and saw him going out of bounds to defend Paul, what is the consequence?
Had the kid made a 3 to win game, could it have been reviewed and reversed?

 

[kcg88]

If the referee was doing his job and saw him going out of bounds to defend, what is the consequence?
Had the kid made a 3 to win game, could it have been reviewed and reversed?

Would have been a technical foul, Rutgers gets 1 shot (I think) and the ball.

To your second point, no, non-calls are generally not reviewable after the fact. See: The St. John's debacle a decade ago, or Buddy Boheim's cheapshot yesterday.

 

[80RU]

I had not even noticed this at the game because I was partially obstructed -- so I just looked at the replay and you are right, #14 so obviously went out of bounds defending the inbounds pass that the official right there should never have missed it. And it was consequential because it prevented the inbounds to Harper before he double clutched. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

 

[zappaa]

Would have been a technical foul, Rutgers gets 1 shot (I think) and the ball.

To your second point, no, non-calls are generally not reviewable after the fact. See: The St. John's debacle a decade ago, or Buddy Boheim's cheapshot yesterday.

So the T should have been called if properly officiated without a warning?

 

[kcg88]

So the T should have been called if properly officiated without a warning?

That's my understanding. I believe if a defender reaches over the plane that's a warning, but any contact with the ball is a technical foul. I think physically stepping over the plane would also warrant a technical.

 

[80RU]

So the T should have been called if properly officiated without a warning?

In the NBA its a warning first -- I don't know about NCAA -- I do know if the defender touches the ball while the inbounder has it there is an immediate T -- Pete Carill used to have his inbounders try to entice this in end game situations -- now I am curious

 

[80RU]

OK, here you go -- "Art. 3. The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a CLASS B technical foul"

 

[fischy5000]

OK, here you go -- "Art. 3. The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a CLASS B technical foul"

So that means...warning first, then a T (per the "Repeated" reference)?

 

[80RU]

So that means...warning first, then a T (per the "Repeated" reference)?

I’m not the expert, but that would be my layperson’s interpretation.

 

[charliem24]

Does the warning then reset the 5 second clock?

 

[zappaa]

OK, here you go -- "Art. 3. The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a CLASS B technical foul"

“Repeated infractions”
Leaves a huge gray area, how many?

 

[SirPerceval]

Do schools submit videos to the league regarding blown calls and/or does the league review games to grade refs i.e. do incompetent refs get called out for it? It’s ridiculous that on an inbounds play from the corner near the opponents bench with 6 seconds left in a one point game someone is not paying close enough attention to how the inbounder is guarded.

 

[zappaa]

I had not even noticed this at the game because I was partially obstructed -- so I just looked at the replay and you are right, #14 so obviously went out of bounds defending the inbounds pass that the official right there should never have missed it. And it was consequential because it prevented the inbounds to Harper before he double clutched. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

80RU-
He bounced out of bounds, back in bounds several times.
One time both feet were completely OB.
And you’re correct, at the precise moment Paul could have found RHJ, both of his feet were out of bounds, his entire body was out of bounds

 

[Skull83]

80RU-
He bounced out of bounds, back in bounds several times.
One time both feet were completely OB.
And you’re correct, at the precise moment Paul could have found RHJ, both of his feet were out of bounds, his entire body was out of bounds

Interesting zap, if he bounced in and out several times, I wonder if that could be considered a "repeated" infraction even without a warning??

 

[Erial_Lion_rivals140457]

The refs missed several things on the last play...from a Rutgers standpoint, White was out of bounds (it wouldn't be a Technical unless he touched the ball while Mulcahy was in possession of it, but they should have blown it dead and told him to back off)...and then, Lundy was definitely tugging on Harper.

But, from a PSU perspective, the clock started about 1.1 seconds early on the play (it started as the ball was passing Harper, but shouldn't have started until Lundy touched it).

 

[BigRnj]

It looked to me like he made contact with Paul with BOTH FEET out of bounds. That’s a T, no need for repeated warnings once contact is made. I took a screen shot of it from my game recording. From that screen shot it sure looks like contact. In addition a fpsu player on the bench 3 feet away stood up and raised an arm to distract Paul. We were almost screwed.

 

[RutgersDom]

Does the warning then reset the 5 second clock?

Yes