Last 1.7 seconds

**IcSyU** · 01-31-2013, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by berther48

I assume they where all concerned about the time rather than the inbound spot. But both were critical to winning the game. I feel since we got the 1.7 seconds, meaning no time off, because no possession, we would get the ball at the original point of entry. Needless to say choas reigned.

Rebound on Sat. and win at home.
Go Cyclones!

The applicable rules straight from the NCAA rulebook:

Rule 7 Section 6 Article 1:

Section 6. Throw-inArt. 1. The throw-in shall start and the throw-in team shall have team control when the ball is at the disposal of a player entitled to the throw-in.

Rule 10 Section 1 Penalty Section 1 Part A

PENALTY: (Section 1) Personal fouls apply toward the team-foul total and toward an individual’s five personal fouls for disqualification. The ball shall be put back in play by the offended player/team as follows:
a. A throw-in (no free throws) nearest to where the foul occurred for:
1. Each common foul before the bonus rule takes effect.
2. A player-control personal foul.
3. A team-control foul.

**ruxCYtable** · 01-31-2013, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by tigershoops31

How do we not have the ball out where it was inbounded in front of our bench if they're going to say Babb was fouled before the touch? If the foul happened before the ball was touched it goes back to where it was inbounded.

This has already been discussed ad-nauseam today and you are wrong. Really becoming quite surprised at how many people thought this was the rule.

**IcSyU** · 01-31-2013, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by ruxCYtable

This has already been discussed ad-nauseam today and you are wrong. Really becoming quite surprised at how many people thought this was the rule.

I know because I messed it up in a middle school game last year and looked up the rule after the game.

**Clones85'** · 01-31-2013, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by ruxCYtable

This has already been discussed ad-nauseam today and you are wrong. Really becoming quite surprised at how many people thought this was the rule.

He posted the question last night right after the game. Nice try though.

**ruxCYtable** · 01-31-2013, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

He posted the question last night right after the game. Nice try though.

My apologies, I didn't see the time stamp. I don't think it called for a smart-*** comment, from a moderator no less.

**Clones85'** · 01-31-2013, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by ruxCYtable

My apologies, I didn't see the time stamp. I don't think it called for a smart-*** comment, from a moderator no less.

I was simply trying to match your comment!

Just giving you a hard time bud.

**WalkingCY** · 01-31-2013, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by spierceisu

I am also baffled by the foul on Melvin after the block. The other guy was laying on the ground and he didn't fall on him, he took a few steps to go after the ball and got called for it. What is he supposed to do on that one?

That one had me going crazy. Just a horrible-horrible call. When it happened, told the wife: this is where the refs are going to screw us from here on out.

**wonkadog** · 01-31-2013, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by WalkingCY

That one had me going crazy. Just a horrible-horrible call. When it happened, told the wife: this is where the refs are going to screw us from here on out.

It was the older, balding ref that made that call if I remember. I don't know what in the world he was thinking. Was he all amped up to call a foul on the shot and then when he saw the clean block he couldn't help but follow through with a call of some sort 2 seconds later? I think of any of the questionable calls, that one is the one where there really is no opposing viewpoint. Absolutely awful.

**Erik4Cy** · 01-31-2013, 01:06 PM

Those refs are awful. Big 12 should make them issue an apology to Iowa State for that debacle. Needs to be reviewed or bad officiating in the big 12 and cbb won't stop. I am really excited about our guys and what the Cyclones could do this year. But college bball refs already are making me want football back NOW!

**ruxCYtable** · 01-31-2013, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Erik4Cy

Needs to be reviewed or bad officiating in the big 12 and cbb won't stop.

Unfortunately, I don't think it ever will stop. Even if it did, it would never reach the level of perfection to please everyone. I truly think athletes have gotten so big and strong and fast that's it's nearly impossible to officiate consistently well.

**iahawkhunter** · 01-31-2013, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by ruxCYtable

Unfortunately, I don't think it ever will stop. Even if it did, it would never reach the level of perfection to please everyone. I truly think athletes have gotten so big and strong and fast that's it's nearly impossible to officiate well.

Does this include consideration of changing how the officiating is performed, or are you claiming near-impossibility for the current setup? For example, in another thread someone suggested adding a 4th on-court official.

**ruxCYtable** · 01-31-2013, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by iahawkhunter

Does this include consideration of changing how the officiating is performed, or are you claiming near-impossibility for the current setup? For example, in another thread someone suggested adding a 4th on-court official.

Little bit of both. If they're serious about improving I think they have to look at some drastic changes. I suggested in another thread getting the officials off the floor so they can see better, perhaps in a volleyball-type nest over the baskets. I know it's way out there but I just think some outside the box thinking is going to be required if we're going to see significant improvement.

**IcSyU** · 01-31-2013, 01:28 PM

Adding officials will make it marginally better but there simply is just too much movement going on to police it well with 3 or 4 sets of eyes IF they're doing their job well. People like to think, "That ref had the perfect angle! How couldn't he whistle that!" Well, if that ref is doing his job he isn't ball watching the whole time so if that call is out of his zone he shouldn't be seeing it.

Now if you had 10 sets of eyes blowing the whistle it could be to the point nothing gets by, BUT that means a lot of stoppage of play, and as you add sets of eyes, you damn well better make sure everyone is on the same page. You absolutely don't want the guy out top signaling block while the guy under the bucket is signaling for an offensive foul.

Anytime there is subjectivity there are going to be problems no matter how many eyes you put on it, replays you allow, etc.

**2ndCyCE** · 01-31-2013, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by IcSyU

Adding officials will make it marginally better but there simply is just too much movement going on to police it well with 3 or 4 sets of eyes IF they're doing their job well. People like to think, "That ref had the perfect angle! How couldn't he whistle that!" Well, if that ref is doing his job he isn't ball watching the whole time so if that call is out of his zone he shouldn't be seeing it.

Now if you had 10 sets of eyes blowing the whistle it could be to the point nothing gets by, BUT that means a lot of stoppage of play, and as you add sets of eyes, you damn well better make sure everyone is on the same page. You absolutely don't want the guy out top signaling block while the guy under the bucket is signaling for an offensive foul.

Anytime there is subjectivity there are going to be problems no matter how many eyes you put on it, replays you allow, etc.

Is there even a precedent for this? I have no recollection of any craziness ever happening!!!