Can someone explain to me....

Donate To GopherHole
E

ethomasp31

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
1,399
Reaction score
789
Points
113
why Wisconsin got two held balls in a row at the beginning of the second half? I was at a party and wasn't able to get audio for the game, but there was a held ball at the beginning of the second half with EE where Wisconsin kept the ball, and then there was a scrum on the floor that looked like another held ball where Wisconsin kept the ball again? What was up with that?
 

There was a foul and a held ball on the first one. The foul gave possession to Wisconsin so the held ball did not count and Wisconsin retained the possession arrow.
 

I thought they said it was because there was a foul called before the ball was inbounded after the jump ball. Still doesn't make sense to me.
 

On the second held ball I thought the announcers said a foul was called on Minnesota before the held ball so no change of possession occured. Not positive on that though.
 

Who was the foul on with the held ball on EE? I'd love to see the replay on that one again, there were a series of fouls on that end at the beginning of the second half, but there was a clear held ball with EE and then another held ball as well on the floor.
 


scools12 said:
On the second held ball I thought the announcers said a foul was called on Minnesota before the held ball so no change of possession occured. Not positive on that though.
Click to expand...

That could be it. I don't think the announcers knew what was going on.
 

Well it looked like Andre Hollins felt the same way as I did according to Gopher Lady's post game notes. I think the morons working the possession arrow f'ed it up.
 

Grimm and Spencer said it was a technicality of the rule. After the 1st jump ball was called and Wisconsin was trying to inbound it a foul was called on the inbound so because they didn't inbound it it doesn't count as a change in posession thats why the arrow was still with them on the 2nd jump ball. Seems like another rule that needs to be looked at along with adding review for the shot clock violation. IMO technically it was a change in posession whether Wisconsin inbounds the ball or not so it seemed like a bad ruling to me.
 

They kept the ball because of the possession arrow!!! How is it that the possession arrow wouldn't change?!?!?!?! If that is a rule, it should be changed.
 



Goldy Gopher said:
Grimm and Spencer said it was a technicality of the rule. After the 1st jump ball was called and Wisconsin was trying to inbound it a foul was called on the inbound so because they didn't inbound it it doesn't count as a change in posession thats why the arrow was still with them on the 2nd jump ball. Seems like another rule that needs to be looked at along with adding review for the shot clock violation. IMO technically it was a change in posession whether Wisconsin inbounds the ball or not so it seemed like a bad ruling to me.
Click to expand...

I think those officials did not implement that rule properly. The possession arrow should change the second the ball in touched by a player on the inbound, regardless if the defending team committed a foul before the inbound or not. If the "inbounding" team committed a violation and never got a possession, then the arrow doesn't change, they get to keep the arrow, but lose the ball. But, if the defensive team commits a violation, it has no impact on the arrow. The second the ball is inbounded, the arrow should be switched. Period. That is the rule. I am not sure how a veteran crew of Ted Valentine, Mike Kitts, and Ray Perone could eff that up, but I really believe they messed it up. Disgraceful.
 

home cooking. There was no reason WI should have got that ball. Even the WI players were at the other end of the court
 

I was at the game, and can tell you that I was completely and thoroughly confused with that whole sequence. And of course, absolutely no explanation was given by the Kohl Center PA announcer.
 

If the rules actually states that the posession arrow doesn't change because there is a foul on the inbounds play, then that is one of the dumbest rules I have ever heard of. WI gained the advantage of in bounding the ball which resulted in a foul. There is no way in the world that they should get the posession arrow again. Either a rediculous interpretation of the rule or a rediculous rule. Either way, what a break for the Badgers.
 



From the NCAA rulebook - Rule 4, Section 2, Article 2

Section 2. Alternating-Possession Procedure

Art. 2. The alternating-possession procedure starts when an official places the ball at the disposal of a player for a throw-in and ends when a passed ball touches or is legally touched by an inbounds player, when a player, who is located on the playing court, touches and causes the ball to be out of bounds or when the throw-in team commits a throw-in violation.

From the NCAA rulebook - Rule 6, Section 3, Article 4

Section 3. Alternating-Possession Situations

Art. 4. A foul by either team during an alternating-possession throw-in shall not cause the throw-in team to lose the alternating-possession arrow.

============================

So, how do you interpret that last one? I would say if the foul is on the inbounding team, then they lose that possession, but keep the arrow. If the foul is on the defending team, then the inbounding team keeps the arrow for that moment, but once it makes the inbounds pass, the arrow should switch.
 


Gopher Warrior said:
TJ's got it. Here is further explanation with a little color commentary added. I think the refs application of the rule was just fine.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the application was wrong. As stated, I think they misinterpreted the rule. I think that rule means a defending team committing a foul simply means the inbounding team keeps the arrow UNTIL they inbound. Otherwise, in theory, the same team could get every alternating possession of the game, and that makes no sense.
 

Just jump the damn ball. Stupidest rule in college BBall. Alternating possessions are just plain dumb.
 

tjgopher said:
Actually, I think the application was wrong. As stated, I think they misinterpreted the rule. I think that rule means a defending team committing a foul simply means the inbounding team keeps the arrow UNTIL they inbound. Otherwise, in theory, the same team could get every alternating possession of the game, and that makes no sense.
Click to expand...

When the defense fouls, the inbounding team either goes to the or gets it out of bounds again. So your description wouldn't make sense to me - "until they inbound"... you wouldn't need to describe that because if they had been fouled, they are going to get the ball out of bounds or go to the line anyway.

The same team COULD get every alternating possession of the game IF the other team kept fouling them each time they tried to throw it in. It makes sense because there is a foul being committed if that were the case.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
When the defense fouls, the inbounding team either goes to the or gets it out of bounds again. So your description wouldn't make sense to me - "until they inbound"... you wouldn't need to describe that because if they had been fouled, they are going to get the ball out of bounds or go to the line anyway.

The same team COULD get every alternating possession of the game IF the other team kept fouling them each time they tried to throw it in. It makes sense because there is a foul being committed if that were the case.
Click to expand...

Minnesota already lost possession. Why would a rule be in place to make a foul penalize them even further? What are they trying to protect there? I totally understand if the inbounding team commits a foul, they lose the possession, but not the arrow. But, if the defensive team commits the foul, they not only have lost the previous possession, but ALSO lose the next arrow? That makes less sense than my explanation of "until they inbound."
 

tjgopher said:
Minnesota already lost possession. Why would a rule be in place to make a foul penalize them even further?
Click to expand...

They didn't lose possession. Wisconsin was awarded a dead ball throw-in. Wisconsin never received possession via an arrow flip. They received possession via a Minnesota foul. (i.e., the throw-in STARTS... which it did in this case.. but a throw-in must also END for possession to be received... which in this case an alternative possession throw-in was not completed due to the MN foul)

I'm not debating whether it's a good rule...
 

Gopher Warrior said:
They didn't lose possession. Wisconsin was awarded a dead ball throw-in. Wisconsin never received possession via an arrow flip. They received possession via a Minnesota foul. (i.e., the throw-in STARTS... which it did in this case.. but a throw-in must also END for possession to be received... which in this case an alternative possession throw-in was not completed due to the MN foul)

I'm not debating whether it's a good rule...
Click to expand...

That's weird. The only reason Wisconsin was inbounding to begin with was because the possession arrow was in its favor. So, the only reason they are inbounding is negated because of a foul, AND they get to keep possession for FREE, AND get the NEXT inbound when there's an alternating possession? Makes total sense.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
When the defense fouls, the inbounding team either goes to the or gets it out of bounds again. So your description wouldn't make sense to me - "until they inbound"... you wouldn't need to describe that because if they had been fouled, they are going to get the ball out of bounds or go to the line anyway.
Click to expand...

The only other thing I can think of in this "if either team commits a foul" is so if the defensive team commits a foul (as MINN did) that the official scorer should not change the arrow at THAT TIME (rule says 'shall not lose arrow'), because the possession inbound hasn't yet been completed, and the arrow must stay in the direction of the inbounding team.

Again, who knows? The rule makes so little sense, I am at a loss.

You're more than likely right.
 

Yeah, that whole rule makes zero sense at all. Like TJ inferred, it's a triple-whammy for the defending team - 2 lost jump possessions plus a foul call.

Was the foul call on the inbounds at least legit? Seemed like a lot of ticky-tack calls (against the Gophers) going on at that time.
 

In hindsight the incompetence of the scorekeeper cost us the game, wisco hit a three after that botched call. Whose cock did Bo suck on that one?
 

Gopher Warrior's explanation was also the explanation given on the BTN broadcast. Seems like a bad rule, but it's a rule. I can't get too upset about any one play/call because the Gophers should have finished that game off.
 

Unregistered User said:
Just jump the damn ball. Stupidest rule in college BBall. Alternating possessions are just plain dumb.
Click to expand...

Ha, I've been thinking about that for quite awhile. Why not bring back the jump ball.........it would be fun to see again.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom