Having trouble getting registered or subscribing? Email us at info@kysportsreport.com or Private Message CitizenBBN and we'll get you set up!

  • A little more shot clock talk, from SEC's Craig Pinkerton

    We've all heard about the "shot clock violation" missed in last night's Kentucky v Vanderbilt basketball game. Nerlens Noel picked up the ball in the lane, dribbled, and shot with the ball still in his hand when the shot clock turned to 0, but with the ball leaving his hand before the shot-clock buzzer sounded. The shot, which was recorded with 17.3 seconds remaining in the game, extended a UK lead to 60-55, and ultimately provided the deciding margin of victory.

    Television announcers, and media throughout the country decried the call as a horrible call, and an "obvious" violation. Some, such as ESPN's Andy Katz, suggest that the call is not a reviewable call is a rule that needs to be changed.

    With this confusion reigning, I went to the Southeastern Conference's men's basketball contact, Craig Pinkerton for answers. Pinkerton first addressed whether or not it is reviewable, stating "By rule, it is not reviewable whether or not the shot clock expires before a shot is taken. The only reviewable instance involving the shot clock is if the shot clock should malfunction." This was also confirmed last night by the SEC's supervisor of officials, Gerald Boudreaux, who was in attendance at the game.

    There was no malfunction of the shot clock, so no review was appropriate. I then asked him whether the clock--the display itself--had any relevance to whether or not a violation occurred.

    Pinkerton simply responded with the NCAA rule itself, as follows:


    Art. 2. It is a violation when a try for field goal does not leave the shooter’s hand before the expiration of the allotted shot-clock time (as indicated by the sounding of the shot-clock horn) or when it does leave the shooter’s hand before the expiration of the alotted shot-clock time and the try does not subsequently strike the ring or flange or enter the basket.


    (The underlined portion is my underlining, for emphasis.)

    No mention of a display. No mention of a shot clock (other than the "shot-clock time.") So even if a review of the play had occurred, it would not have involved looking at the shot clock, since that does not indicate whether or not a violation occurred.

    We're going to put this one in the books, and chalk it up to, "the officials knew the rule, but we didn't." That isn't nearly as sexy of a headline as officials blow a call, but it is more accurate.

    Thanks to Craig Pinkerton for the discussion.
    Comments 28 Comments
    1. Jeeepcat's Avatar
      Jeeepcat -
      This is exactly what I was thinking last night. Unless they were going to synch the slo-mo with the horn - there was nothing to review.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      I went back and watched the Youtube replay several times. It appeared from just watching it in real time, the shot left before the horn sounded. But like you said, without putting it in slow-mo sync, not sure you could even gain anything with a review.

      I maintain it was a good call, not just "not a bad one."
    1. LakeCat's Avatar
      LakeCat -
      Official made up for the call on UK's last inbound. I thought the Vandy player clearly knocked it out of Mays hand. If Vandy had hit the three to win we would be howling about that call like Vandy is on Noel's shot.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      Didn't make up for the call--they got it right. Can't make up for a call you got right.

      (But yeah, I thought it was a "make up" call, too. I get ya.)
    1. GhettoBird's Avatar
      GhettoBird -
      I always thought it was the horn and not the clock. All three zebras never waivered, they all thought it was good, they were listening for the horn, not watching the clock. The really issues is Stalling was starring at the clock, so the bench obvious saw zero before the horn sounded, which is clearly all the replay showed.

      I am with you Darrell it was clearly a good call.
    1. CitizenBBN's Avatar
      CitizenBBN -
      trying to remember the game i watched some years ago where it came up, don't think it was UK but it was the same discussion and they said it was the horn and not the clock.

      they can review when it's the game clock and not the shot clock and the same rule applies. for the game clock the inability to review it on video (try hearing sounds on frame by frame video) or sync in the human brain between those two inputs is why teams put lights on the goals that sync with the horn.
    1. Doc's Avatar
      Doc -
      IMO they need to change the wording of the rule. When reviewing in slo-motion, the easiest method is to go visual. Shot clock is by the basket for a reason. Slo-motion does not incorporate sound. Of course it not being reviewable makes the point moot. Might be easier for an official to go by sound rather than sight. That's not to say the call was right or wrong, only that their is a better way to determine if a violation occurred if utilizing replay to justify the call.

      I would suspect were it were Vandy who had the ball and took a shot after the shot clock showed "0", I suspect many who support this "0 on the clock could be 0.99999999 seconds to 0.0000 seconds" would be signing a different tune. It would be chalked down to "Memorial Magic", "everybody hates UK", "officials are incompetent" etc.... Nothing to support that other than being a 30 year fan of UK and seeing how folks react.
    1. CitizenBBN's Avatar
      CitizenBBN -
      Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post

      I would suspect were it were Vandy who had the ball and took a shot after the shot clock showed "0", I suspect many who support this "0 on the clock could be 0.99999999 seconds to 0.0000 seconds" would be signing a different tune. It would be chalked down to "Memorial Magic", "everybody hates UK", "officials are incompetent" etc.... Nothing to support that other than being a 30 year fan of UK and seeing how folks react.
      A lot might, but darrell sure wouldn't and speaking for myself I'd blame it on us stinking up the 2nd half against a pretty soft zone and kyle being beaten on the drive by a lamp post. No one call made this a 2 point game and near loss, going 1-14 against that zone and horrid defense did it, and i think most (not all) fans would still be mostly mad at the team and not the refs.

      if it were reversed though and did look like a violation (this doesn't look like a technical one) we'd have a complaint about how they don't have the correct setup in the gym that makes it hard to get right either way. heck i have that complaint and it may have benefited us. time for the sec to make vandy come into compliance.
    1. BarristerCat's Avatar
      BarristerCat -
      Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post
      IMO they need to change the wording of the rule. When reviewing in slo-motion, the easiest method is to go visual. Shot clock is by the basket for a reason. Slo-motion does not incorporate sound. Of course it not being reviewable makes the point moot. Might be easier for an official to go by sound rather than sight. That's not to say the call was right or wrong, only that their is a better way to determine if a violation occurred if utilizing replay to justify the call.

      I would suspect were it were Vandy who had the ball and took a shot after the shot clock showed "0", I suspect many who support this "0 on the clock could be 0.99999999 seconds to 0.0000 seconds" would be signing a different tune. It would be chalked down to "Memorial Magic", "everybody hates UK", "officials are incompetent" etc.... Nothing to support that other than being a 30 year fan of UK and seeing how folks react.
      Yeah, fans are going to be fans, but that doesn't change what the rule says.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      I came out against the officials immediately, calling it a bad, horrible call. While the game was going on. When the game was in doubt, and it stood to make a difference. (Not that it matters, just pointing out I have no problem calling it like I see it.) The interesting thing was, I did not know the rule, and the Colorado - Arizona game taught me that there were some interesting dynamics going on with shot clocks. (I USED to know the rule in that situation, discovered I did not know it anymore, because the rule had changed when they went to tenths of seconds.)

      Full disclosure--at the time, when I was tweeting, I also was making some comments like, "At least that's the only call the officials missed tonight," of course, implying that it was just one call in a game and wasn't game-dispositive. But clearly railing on the officials for the "very late," and "very obvious" missed call.

      But then I started thinking about how the game clock didn't used to be the controlling factor, and the reason they gave for the change--that they added tenths of seconds, so you could see that when it went down from 1 second it would not immediately go to 0; but instead to 0.9, 0.8, etc. And that when they did that, the rule changed such that the clock *then* became the controlling factor.

      So it made me wonder what was the key here. I asked questions, and got some answers that did not make me comfortable that they knew what they were talking about. So I figured googling would be easy enough to see the rule and decide it.

      It took me a couple of searches (I'm not the greatest at it), but found three interesting things. First, the NAIA rule, which said what Pinkerton said, and what we said in the other thread. So I started thinking that must be the rule, but of course, that was not definitive.

      Then found a scorekeeper's rule. That's the rule I initially cited. It was from the 2011-13 (not sure why it's like that, but it is) NCAA Rule Book. Pretty much made it crystal clear that the clock was irrelevant, and that time remained. It was the same as the NAIA rule. Both surprised me a little, but it was consistent with what the rule *used* to be with game clocks, so in that sense, it made perfect sense.

      Then I was actually going to go to Boudreaux, but Craig Pinkerton stepped in and offered guidance, as stated above. And frankly, it makes perfect sense. It is consistent with the old game clock rule, before they added tenths of a second. In addition, it has to be easier for officials to listen for a buzzer while watching the shot out of someone's hand, than to watch the play on the court, and with some third eye, watch a shot clock simultaneously. (Yeah, I know if the clock were the guiding force, they could go to the monitor--but it isn't, so the call isn't reviewable, again, which makes sense.)

      Oh--one thing I did not raise in my quick googling is that the NBA began adding tenths of a second to their shot clock when the time fell under 5.0, and now the NBA uses the shot clock. (Don't hold me 100% to that; it was not completely relevant to the discussion, so I quickly moved on.)

      The honest truth--there's a LARGE part of me that would rather the rule be the shot clock is the violation, rather than the buzzer, so we could sorta rub that nonconforming gym in Vandy's face. With 18.0+ seconds remaining with the shot out of Noel's hand, it did not decide the game, even if it had been wrong, especially with the blown inbounds call on UK's next possession. So it would have been enjoyable to say, "it's your gym, you're the cause of your team losing, etc."

      I would have greatly enjoyed that; so much so, that I wish it had been the case.
    1. wes011's Avatar
      wes011 -
      I think it's funny because everyone is talking about this one particular play. One play does not lose a team the game, unless they are playing Kentucky and lose by 2 I guess.
    1. KentuckyWildcat's Avatar
      KentuckyWildcat -
      Watching live I thought it was a bad call based on the horn. Watching on youtube I would not disagree with someone either way but I think he got it off.
    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      Quote Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat View Post
      Watching live I thought it was a bad call based on the horn. Watching on youtube I would not disagree with someone either way but I think he got it off.
      I think that is fair.
    1. Doc's Avatar
      Doc -
      Wonder if the rule at the end of the half/game (game clock) is the same as this clock (shot clock). If so, they have been calling it wrong since the rule was changed. When there is a question about a shot getting off before half time or the end of the game, they never utilize the horn. They watch the replay and visually watch the clock. Granted, that is "reviewable" and the game clock has 1/10 second increments so maybe that is why they go visual however I guess 0.0 could actually be 0.099999 and thus prior the horn.
    1. Doc's Avatar
      Doc -
      Quote Originally Posted by Darrell KSR View Post
      I came out against the officials immediately, calling it a bad, horrible call. While the game was going on. When the game was in doubt, and it stood to make a difference. (Not that it matters, just pointing out I have no problem calling it like I see it.) The interesting thing was, I did not know the rule, and the Colorado - Arizona game taught me that there were some interesting dynamics going on with shot clocks. (I USED to know the rule in that situation, discovered I did not know it anymore, because the rule had changed when they went to tenths of seconds.)

      Full disclosure--at the time, when I was tweeting, I also was making some comments like, "At least that's the only call the officials missed tonight," of course, implying that it was just one call in a game and wasn't game-dispositive. But clearly railing on the officials for the "very late," and "very obvious" missed call.

      But then I started thinking about how the game clock didn't used to be the controlling factor, and the reason they gave for the change--that they added tenths of seconds, so you could see that when it went down from 1 second it would not immediately go to 0; but instead to 0.9, 0.8, etc. And that when they did that, the rule changed such that the clock *then* became the controlling factor.

      So it made me wonder what was the key here. I asked questions, and got some answers that did not make me comfortable that they knew what they were talking about. So I figured googling would be easy enough to see the rule and decide it.

      It took me a couple of searches (I'm not the greatest at it), but found three interesting things. First, the NAIA rule, which said what Pinkerton said, and what we said in the other thread. So I started thinking that must be the rule, but of course, that was not definitive.

      Then found a scorekeeper's rule. That's the rule I initially cited. It was from the 2011-13 (not sure why it's like that, but it is) NCAA Rule Book. Pretty much made it crystal clear that the clock was irrelevant, and that time remained. It was the same as the NAIA rule. Both surprised me a little, but it was consistent with what the rule *used* to be with game clocks, so in that sense, it made perfect sense.

      Then I was actually going to go to Boudreaux, but Craig Pinkerton stepped in and offered guidance, as stated above. And frankly, it makes perfect sense. It is consistent with the old game clock rule, before they added tenths of a second. In addition, it has to be easier for officials to listen for a buzzer while watching the shot out of someone's hand, than to watch the play on the court, and with some third eye, watch a shot clock simultaneously. (Yeah, I know if the clock were the guiding force, they could go to the monitor--but it isn't, so the call isn't reviewable, again, which makes sense.)

      Oh--one thing I did not raise in my quick googling is that the NBA began adding tenths of a second to their shot clock when the time fell under 5.0, and now the NBA uses the shot clock. (Don't hold me 100% to that; it was not completely relevant to the discussion, so I quickly moved on.)

      The honest truth--there's a LARGE part of me that would rather the rule be the shot clock is the violation, rather than the buzzer, so we could sorta rub that nonconforming gym in Vandy's face. With 18.0+ seconds remaining with the shot out of Noel's hand, it did not decide the game, even if it had been wrong, especially with the blown inbounds call on UK's next possession. So it would have been enjoyable to say, "it's your gym, you're the cause of your team losing, etc."

      I would have greatly enjoyed that; so much so, that I wish it had been the case.
      I never meant to imply you were one of those selective folks. If I did it was unintentional and my apologies. I still hold the opinion though that many if not most UK fans would be complaining about how bad a call it was if the uniforms were the other way. Regardless of whether or not it was the correct call, all that needs to happen in the minds of many is that the call not be in UK favor for it to be incorrect. That in and of itself makes any call in some fans mind a bad one. Again, you do not fall in that group.




      The honest truth--there's a LARGE part of me that would rather the rule be the shot clock is the violation, rather than the buzzer,
      This was another point I was trying to make. I too would prefer it be the clock, not the horn. IMO start the shot clock at 36 rather than 35 so that when it is 0.999 it still reads 1 second. When there is 0.000000009 seconds, it still reads 1 second. And when its 0.0000000000000, then it clicks to "0". Slow motion replay never has sound and if it did you likely would not be able to differentiate. Personally I also believe this should be "reviewable". Heck, they review when there is a question about whether a trey was a trey or not, and retroactively will change the score. Personally I'd have no issue with that. Heck, it seems less of distraction than when they review to see if a kid swung his elbow because a coach complains enough.
    1. KentuckyWildcat's Avatar
      KentuckyWildcat -
      My boss grew up in Ohio, but grew up a UNC fan. She hates UK as much as I hate Duke, UL, etc... I showed the clip to her and she thought he got the shot off as well, but said she would not bet her job on it.
    1. Doc's Avatar
      Doc -
      One other thing

      While some are trying to sell this "O" on the clock means there could be as much as 0.99999 seconds left, I'm not buying. I'm "almost" 50 years and in the roughly 40 years of watching sports, I've never seen a clock go "3.....2......1......0.......horn". Its always "3......2......1......0/horn". The horn is automatically synchronized to go off when the clock hits "0", not 0.999999999 seconds after the clock hits "0". However I don't doubt the rules are written to go by the horn because as an official, you can't watch both the shooter and clock. Even if you had Marty Feldman eyes, you could not see both at the same time, but you could watch the shooter and hear the horn. This is why I suspect the rule is written as it is. But there should be no delay between the clock hitting zero and the horn.
    1. KentuckyWildcat's Avatar
      KentuckyWildcat -
      I don't get the thought that at 0 there could be .XXX remaining. 0 is still 0. The .XXX would be between 0 and 1, meaning with 1 second remaining on the clock there may or may not be 1 full second.

      Could there be a delay between 0 and the horn? Absolutely, when 0 hits that would trigger the horn to go off. In theory, that might take a millisecond, but it should be close enough that a human eye/ear could not tell the difference. If they have a noticeable delay they need to get clock/horn fixed. They can't afford to lose any games because of their jacked up gym

      It is not reviewabe IMO, b/c of the number of times this could be reviewed in a game compared to twice at the end of a half and the end of a game.


      At least we are able to once again piss off Stallings
    1. JPScott's Avatar
      JPScott -
      Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post
      IMO they need to change the wording of the rule. When reviewing in slo-motion, the easiest method is to go visual. Shot clock is by the basket for a reason. Slo-motion does not incorporate sound. Of course it not being reviewable makes the point moot. Might be easier for an official to go by sound rather than sight. That's not to say the call was right or wrong, only that their is a better way to determine if a violation occurred if utilizing replay to justify the call.
      As far as sound vs.sight, I don't think anyone is ever going to expect an official to be watching the clock while at the same time watching everything else happening on the floor. The answer to this, of course, is to have a light around the backboard that lights up when the horn sounds, which would much more likely to be within the official's field of vision (especially when a shot is on its way). Vandy has this, only apparently it hasn't been working the last few games and they haven't seen fit to get it fixed.

      Between having a non-functional light and placing the shot clock (without tenths showing) off to the side, Vandy didn't do themselves any favors.

      Another thing I'd add. The more I think about it, the more I think that having a digital clock is not the best. I think a large analog clock with a sweeping second hand placed above the backboard would work better. It could start at 35 seconds and move counter-clockwise up to the 12:00 position signifying time is up, and light up if you wish. In that way whether you are tenths of a second or hundreths of a second off, it's harder to read exactly how much time is left but easier for everyone to see how far away you are from zero. With a digital clock, there's always some question as to where you are between seconds.

      BTW, there is a photo of the shot that is interesting. I don't know that it proves anything either way in terms of whether he released in time, other than it illustrates that it was indeed extremely close.

    1. Darrell KSR's Avatar
      Darrell KSR -
      Doc, the clock starts at 35. It goes to 34 as soon as the clock operator clicks the button--that tells the officials it is working. It does not, however, take 1 full second of watching the clock for it to move from 35 to 34 after pressing the button. I haven't run the clock for a 35 second shot clock, but I have operated clocks without tenths of seconds, and that's how they're done. Think of it this way--picture the 35 second clock as having tenths of seconds.

      It starts at 35.0.

      The instant you start it, it goes to 34.9.

      Well, without tenths, it goes to 34. But it's not "just" 34 seconds, it is 34 plus. Same thing for 0 from 1. And no, the horn does not go off when it hits 0. The NCAA rule says that (see below), and if you watch the replay of last night, it is abundantly clear, the clock goes to 0 before the horn. The horn goes off when time expires. But time does not expire when the clock hits 0.

      Your analysis also fails to consider that the NCAA rule specifies time between the clock going to 0 and the horn sounding. This is from the NCAA rulebook:

      "When the shot clock indicates zeros but the shot-clock horn has not sounded, the shot-clock time has not expired."


      http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/BR13.pdf

      Rule 2, Section 11, Article 9. I think it's page 47 in the PDF.

      There is no reason for that if they are designed to be simultaneous. There is time between the clock "going to zeros" and the horn sounding. And that time, by rule, is within the 35 seconds allotted to release the shot.

      Just so you know it's not just me--Kyle Tucker also provided the same from his story this morning.

      From his story:

      When the clock fans see first shows zero, it really means “less than one,” as in 0.9, 0.8, 0.7 …

      http://blogs.courier-journal.com/ukb...ck-or-does-he/

      Ten years ago, game clocks did exactly the same thing. You started it at 20.00. The instant it started, it went to 19.59. But it was more than 19.59.


      Quote Originally Posted by Doc View Post
      One other thing

      While some are trying to sell this "O" on the clock means there could be as much as 0.99999 seconds left, I'm not buying. I'm "almost" 50 years and in the roughly 40 years of watching sports, I've never seen a clock go "3.....2......1......0.......horn". Its always "3......2......1......0/horn". The horn is automatically synchronized to go off when the clock hits "0", not 0.999999999 seconds after the clock hits "0". However I don't doubt the rules are written to go by the horn because as an official, you can't watch both the shooter and clock. Even if you had Marty Feldman eyes, you could not see both at the same time, but you could watch the shooter and hear the horn. This is why I suspect the rule is written as it is. But there should be no delay between the clock hitting zero and the horn.
  • KSR Twitter Feed

  • Recent Forum Posts

    Harlow

    Re: Oakland v UK hall of fame

    See ya next guys with a new coach

    Harlow 03-22-2024, 08:36 AM Go to last post