Question?

[Zimwillett]

Why is a made basket on a shot clock violation not reviewable the entire game? Whether a made basket is a 3 or a 2 is. I see no functional difference. Makes no sense.

OU still had their chances, but didn't play well enough to win. Still, this rule should be looked at and this game is exhibit A.

 

[opsooner]

Why is a made basket on a shot clock violation not reviewable the entire game? Whether a made basket is a 3 or a 2 is. I see no functional difference. Makes no sense.

OU still had their chances, but didn't play well enough to win. Still, this rule should be looked at and this game is exhibit A.

I said the same thing in the game thread. It's even a bigger play that can be corrected. Time for a rule change.

 

[sdcloud9]

It's reviewable up to 4 minutes of actual game time.

After that, it's not reviewable.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Maybe the lead official needs to get an electric shock when the shot clock goes off. He might notice it then.

 

[Zimwillett]

It's reviewable up to 4 minutes of actual game time.

After that, it's not reviewable.

So if it's at 4:05 it's cool, but 3:59 it's not? That seems completely arbitrary.

Again, there are many other reasons OU lost this game, but that was a huge play that should have never counted. The rule needs to be fixed.

 

[opsooner]

It's reviewable up to 4 minutes of actual game time.

After that, it's not reviewable.

Yes, but the point made is that 3-vs-2 is always reviewable and this is even a bigger play that can be handled in the same manner so it should also always be reviewable. Rule change needed.

 

[WTSooner]

Doesn't every sport have a review rule like that? Something that isn't reviewable all game long, just towards the end of a half.

Wouldn't be practical to review it all the time. And how do you review on a miss and offensive rebound? Not a black and white situation.

 

[Zimwillett]

Doesn't every sport have a review rule like that? Something that isn't reviewable all game long, just towards the end of a half.

Wouldn't be practical to review it all the time. And how do you review on a miss and offensive rebound? Not a black and white situation.

Not really. NFL is the only one I can think of that alters the review rules late, but even the coaches have an opportunity to challenge all calls.

It's practical to review on 3/2 calls all game. What's the difference? And if it's not black and white, the "indisputable video evidence" standard takes care of that. I just don't see a reason to. It review these all the time.

 

[WTSooner]

Not really. NFL is the only one I can think of that alters the review rules late, but even the coaches have an opportunity to challenge all calls.

It's practical to review on 3/2 calls all game. What's the difference? And if it's not black and white, the "indisputable video evidence" standard takes care of that. I just don't see a reason to. It review these all the time.

My black and white comment was about how you do it within the context of the game. It's easy to say on a made shot, but what about a missed shot where the offensive team gets a rebound? You gonna let them play for 2 minutes until the next dead ball? You gonna blow the whistle on the offensive rebound?

Pretty sure MLB has different review rules for early in the game and late in the game as well.

 

[opsooner]

Doesn't every sport have a review rule like that? Something that isn't reviewable all game long, just towards the end of a half.

Wouldn't be practical to review it all the time. And how do you review on a miss and offensive rebound? Not a black and white situation.

3-vs-2 is noted by the refs and the score can be changed by the officials at the next timeout. They should do the same here if they are going to do it for that.

I'm not blaming the loss on the shot tonight. The refs did not do it on purpose and they followed the rules. I am just saying that the rules should be changed to make it the same. You cannot review every call and you cannot rule judgement calls at all. However, this is easily correctable - just like 3-vs-2.

 

[Zimwillett]

My black and white comment was about how you do it within the context of the game. It's easy to say on a made shot, but what about a missed shot where the offensive team gets a rebound? You gonna let them play for 2 minutes until the next dead ball? You gonna blow the whistle on the offensive rebound?

Pretty sure MLB has different review rules for early in the game and late in the game as well.

i see your point. I'd just limit the question to whether a made shot left the player's hand on time. Those are usually pretty black and white. All sports recognize that scoring plays should be reviewable. The NFL review all scoring plays without challeng now. Mlb reviews all close call HRs. NCAA bb reviews 3/2.

I know I'm just pissed because this secifically impacted. My team in a major way. Still, it seems like an easy enough rule to fix, especially if accuracy of calls is important.

Oh well. On to Texas!

 

[WTSooner]

3-vs-2 is noted by the refs and the score can be changed by the officials at the next timeout. They should do the same here if they are going to do it for that.

I'm not blaming the loss on the shot tonight. The refs did not do it on purpose and they followed the rules. I am just saying that the rules should be changed to make it the same. You cannot review every call and you cannot rule judgement calls at all. However, this is easily correctable - just like 3-vs-2.

It's different though. On a 3 vs 2, the ball went in, the team is getting points, and nothing changes other than the score. That is no true on a shot clock violation. Or, that is not true on all shot clock violations. Because there can be misses, and offensive rebounds. Not the same situation at all.

 

[Zimwillett]

It's different though. On a 3 vs 2, the ball went in, the team is getting points, and nothing changes other than the score. That is no true on a shot clock violation. Or, that is not true on all shot clock violations. Because there can be misses, and offensive rebounds. Not the same situation at all.

So how does it work any better with 4 minutes left?

 

[opsooner]

It's different though. On a 3 vs 2, the ball went in, the team is getting points, and nothing changes other than the score. That is no true on a shot clock violation. Or, that is not true on all shot clock violations. Because there can be misses, and offensive rebounds. Not the same situation at all.

It is not different on a made shot though and that is what happened here. Additionally, they do review this later in the game.

Personally, I don't like the fact that a score can be changed afterwards. You could go several minutes in a game thinking you are tied or ahead when you are really tied or behind. I just don't like that there is inconsistency between these situations.

 

[WTSooner]

So how does it work any better with 4 minutes left?

Don't know, can't remember seeing it reviewed, so I don't know how it's done.

It probably works like the 3 vs 2 on a MADE shot. But it can't work that way on a missed shot. And personally, I don't like any rule that would treat those two (make vs miss) differently.

It's a tough situation, but I don't like complaining about a rule that's been in place for God knows how long, only when it hurts OU. It's like the three way tie in football back in 2008 (maybe). Everybody knew the rule, nobody said a word, then when it was going to hurt UT and TT, they and their fans wanted to be up in arms about it. That is lame, IMO. The rule is the rule.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Don't know, can't remember seeing it reviewed, so I don't know how it's done.

It probably works like the 3 vs 2 on a MADE shot. But it can't work that way on a missed shot. And personally, I don't like any rule that would treat those two (make vs miss) differently.

It's a tough situation, but I don't like complaining about a rule that's been in place for God knows how long, only when it hurts OU. It's like the three way tie in football back in 2008 (maybe). Everybody knew the rule, nobody said a word, then when it was going to hurt UT and TT, they and their fans wanted to be up in arms about it. That is lame, IMO. The rule is the rule.

You don't see much complaining because the refs usually get that call right and the rule doesn't come into play.

 

[opsooner]

It's different though. On a 3 vs 2, the ball went in, the team is getting points, and nothing changes other than the score. That is no true on a shot clock violation. Or, that is not true on all shot clock violations. Because there can be misses, and offensive rebounds. Not the same situation at all.

True. My recollection is that when they do review the shot clock issue they wait until they see who has control of the ball first and then only review if the offense rebounds it. That is, they stop it at that point for the review. I did not know that they only did it in the last 4 minutes until tonight I just have not seen it that much. I would vote to either not review it all or always review it. I am not a big fan of the rule changes when the "game is on the line". It is always on the line. I would also be OK with what I said earlier and only reviewing like the 3-vs-2 on makes only.

You are right, though, it is sour grapes for us tonight.

 

[quick release]

Don't know, can't remember seeing it reviewed, so I don't know how it's done.

It probably works like the 3 vs 2 on a MADE shot. But it can't work that way on a missed shot. And personally, I don't like any rule that would treat those two (make vs miss) differently.

It's a tough situation, but I don't like complaining about a rule that's been in place for God knows how long, only when it hurts OU. It's like the three way tie in football back in 2008 (maybe). Everybody knew the rule, nobody said a word, then when it was going to hurt UT and TT, they and their fans wanted to be up in arms about it. That is lame, IMO. The rule is the rule.

The rule also says shots don't count after the shot clock expired.

 

[WTSooner]

The rule also says shots don't count after the shot clock expired.

I love how you guys are acting like this was a super-obvious call. We're talking 1 or 2 tenths of a second. They got it wrong. Tough to get that one right all the time, in live action.

 

[Zimwillett]

I love how you guys are acting like this was a super-obvious call. We're talking 1 or 2 tenths of a second. They got it wrong. Tough to get that one right all the time, in live action.

It was obvious enough that the announcers immediately and correctly questioned it. The fairly obvious travel that wasn't called just makes it worse.

Besides, most on this thread are advocating for a rule change that would allow officials to correct these mistakes when they aren't perfect in live action. Yet you object to that as well.