Used to, the ref in the lane passed the ball to a second ref who stood at the line in front of the shooter to ensure that everyone was in the right spot before handing the shooter the ball. Now, the ref in the lane is the only one near the lane and responsible for the entire lane while the other two officials are on the wings. It seems to me that the old way worked better to eliminate what we saw Friday.

^ Even so, he must be behind the three point line and behind the parralell line of the free throw line, which he clearly wasn't.

No, there is no rule that says that in the situation that occurred. Also, in one of your previous posts you stated that in "rel" basketball the ref said whether to stay still or not, who's to say that this ref did the same thing???

 

The SEC's official statement is about the best spin they could put on this, they never go against their own officals ruling. Its the exact statemenet that i was expecting to hear from MR. B

Didn't get to watch the game but it was explained to me that Meeks was shooting free throws with a 3 point lead and 5 seconds left; and Thomas committed a lane violation at that point. So, if this is correct I think people need to quit complaining about the call by the official and complain about the call by Tubby. Why in the world would you have guys on the line in the first place?

 

I thought Tubby was telling them to go back after the first shot but not quickly enough. On the replay, it looks like Thomas was turned looking at Tubby and Tubby was telling them to get back. Thomas stepped out to head back, but he was too late in doing so and he tried to step back up to the lane.

That is why the call is incorrect. Thomas cannot be standing where he was at the time Meeks received the ball and was there because the official did not make sure everyone was set, so the ref has to allow him to reset.

The official did make sure everyone was set...then he moved...the right call was made. Everyone (including Tubby) have admitted as much...there are about 5-6 of you on here, that can't grasp it right.

No, there is no rule that says that in the situation that occurred.

The rules doesn't exactly address what Sheray did, BUT he committed a violation per today's rules...they may change this post season, but not right now.

The official did make sure everyone was set...then he moved...the right call was made. Everyone (including Tubby) have admitted as much...there are about 5-6 of you on here, that can't grasp it right.

 

How could he have made sure if Thomas was in the process of moving when he threw the ball. I have seen this happen several times this year, and in every case they allowed the player to reset. So you are saying that Thomas was suppose to stay exactly where he was when Meeks received the ball? I did not realize he was allowed to be there, but I guess I am wrong.

 

The words that I heard come out of Smith's mouth did not lead me to believe that he agreed with the call.

 

There is no guarantee that the game would not have turned out the same, we are talking about a UK team here that can find many different ways to lose games, but I believe that in the near future that this will be clarified.

It is what it is and it is what was called. Move on and get ready for the NCAA. :walk:

Didn't get to watch the game but it was explained to me that Meeks was shooting free throws with a 3 point lead and 5 seconds left; and Thomas committed a lane violation at that point. So, if this is correct I think people need to quit complaining about the call by the official and complain about the call by Tubby. Why in the world would you have guys on the line in the first place?

 

There are 2 issues:

 

1. The whistle

2. The strategy

 

Neither worked well for the Cats.

The official did make sure everyone was set...then he moved...the right call was made. .

 

RP, if you can cite the rule that says no one can move from the lane when the official has made sure everyone was set, we can end the discussion. Unfortunately, the wording to support your claim does not exist.

It is not said that way, but is worded in the manner that a player can not be where Sheray was....it's a violation, game over...better luck next week....

It is not said that way, but is worded in the manner that a player can not be where Sheray was....it's a violation, game over...better luck next week....

 

Two problems:

 

1. Precedent. We've all seen many times where a ref takes the ball back from a shooter after something happens (player moves, horn blows) that was not a violation BY THE WORDS IN THE RULEBOOK.

 

2. B-ball (and others sports') officials have to go by what the rulebook says.

^ Even so, he must be behind the three point line and behind the parralell line of the free throw line, which he clearly wasn't.

 

 

Clearly the idiot ref shouldn't give it to the shooter until everyone is set, but he didn't. He also asked for the ball back and that answer he gave as to why was a cop out bad.

It is not said that way, but is worded in the manner that a player can not be where Sheray was....it's a violation, game over...better luck next week....

I thought it was a travel:p Seriously it was a violation. As soon as Thomas moved I just cringed.

Two problems:

 

1. Precedent. We've all seen many times where a ref takes the ball back from a shooter after something happens (player moves, horn blows) that was not a violation BY THE WORDS IN THE RULEBOOK.

2. B-ball (and others sports') officials have to go by what the rulebook says.

 

This is one of the reasons that Boudreaux's statement that the officials had no choice. Why did they have a choice in all the other instances?

 

Why did the Miss St coach not a technical for being out of the coaches box?

This is one of the reasons that Boudreaux's statement that the officials had no choice. Why did they have a choice in all the other instances?

 

Why did the Miss St coach not a technical for being out of the coaches box?

Thats a very good point!