Clarifying Shot Clock Violation Rule

[Coldstream]

Watching the TN vs. Okla. St. game, Okla St. inbounds the ball with 1 second on the shot clock but a TN player intercepts the ball but the refs whistle the ball dead saying that the shot clock expired.

Now why would they do that if the shot clock cannot restart until a player touches the ball and the TN player clearly not only touches it but dribbles it right away??

[lighthouse]

I was halfway watching the game, and I think another player tipped the ball which started the clock, and the shot clock ran out before the Tennessee player gained control. Did anybody see it different?

[Coldstream]

That would explain it if it was tipped before the defender intercepted the inbound pass but I didn't see it tipped.

[TRexSmarts]

yes, the ball was tipped I did see that. But I still think though that the play should continue on anyway. They shouldn't have to stop for stoppage unless the offensive team still has the ball. If the ball is loose and the offensive team pick up the ball when the clock has expire, then stop it. But if a defensive team pick it up, let them play. Why won't they continue letting them play? To me, I think the way it is now, it penalizes the defensive team.

TRexSmarts

[Coldstream]

I agree with that. It is like the defense gets penalized somewhat by killing a great defensive play. In this case, the defense tightened up for 24 seconds and deflected a pass which went out of bounds with one second left. On the inbound pass, they still out-performed the offense and got a steal but the refs stop the play, killing a fast break by the defense.


TRexSmarts wrote: yes, the ball was tipped I did see that. But I still think though that the play should continue on anyway. They shouldn't have to stop for stoppage unless the offensive team still has the ball. If the ball is loose and the offensive team pick up the ball when the clock has expire, then stop it. But if a defensive team pick it up, let them play. Why won't they continue letting them play? To me, I think the way it is now, it penalizes the defensive team.

TRexSmarts

[lighthouse]

I don't disagree with your senerio, but the officials have to inforce the rules. It all has to do with team control. Team control starts when the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower-in, and continues until an opponent secures control. There is no change in team control when a ball is tipped, but as soon as the ball is touched inbounds, the clocks start. So, with 1 second left and the ball tipped, there isn't much time for an opponent to gain control. They were correct in their call.

[TRexSmarts]

lighthouse wrote: I don't disagree with your senerio, but the officials have to inforce the rules. It all has to do with team control. Team control starts when the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower-in, and continues until an opponent secures control. There is no change in team control when a ball is tipped, but as soon as the ball is touched inbounds, the clocks start. So, with 1 second left and the ball tipped, there isn't much time for an opponent to gain control. They were correct in their call.
Lighthouse, I'm not saying that it wasn't the correct call because I know it was. But what I'm asking is can the rule be changed so it doesn't penalized the defensive team? What's the advantages and disadvantages of this rule being called this way compared to how I said in my last post about letting them play on? Does that make sense?

TRexSmarts

[lighthouse]

It makes perfect sense TRex, but I very much doubt the rule will be changed. Because changing the team control rule would cause a lot of problems with a bunch of other rules. I knew you wern't questioning the call.