Question on Carlino's 3

Carlino hits the 3 with about 11 seconds left. The game continues and Creighton gets a couple good looks at the hoop but doesn't score.

Then, after the final buzzer the refs review the 3.

Question - did the refs initiate that review, did Creighton ask for the review, should the refs have stopped the game after Carlino hit the shot to verify the 3?
Not sure what the rule is that late in the game, or if it changes at all under 2 minutes / 1 minute.

I do not believe that Creighton requested it because in the post game presser Bobby Neimon, er, I mean Greg McDermott said that he was pretty sure it was a three and as much as he hated having his kids stand around in that situation only to confirm it.

I am not sure, but I think the rule is that they can only stop a game to review a three (or an elbow) when the game stops - can't stop the flow of the game for a review. After the made hoop, Creighton inbounded and with no fouls or timeouts, the flow of the game did not stop until the final buzzer.

Plus, with MU up one, it would not have mattered unless Creighton went to the line. If the 3 had tied the game, I have to assume they would have reviewed it right away since that affects how both teams play (i.e., if down 1 MU has to foul but not if tied, etc). With CU down 1, they need to score regardless.

It was definitely initiated by the officials. McDermott seemed surprised by the review and after a bit, he seemed torqued that they were taking so long. He was trying to get his kids off the court.

My question is what if the replay showed Carlino's foot was on the line and was a 2 instead instead of a 3? Would the game just go to OT or would there be a redo with Creighton getting the ball back with 11 seconds to go and the game now tied? To me, unless there is a stoppage of the clock right away on the play in question (out-of-bounds, a foul, time-out), they shouldn't be able to retroactively review a play.

As my friend texted, he's now called Car-3-no.

I saw in another game after a 3 point shot a tag appeared on screen saying review initiated, but play continued until a whistle. Maybe it is a new process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCwarrior

My question is what if the replay showed Carlino's foot was on the line and was a 2 instead instead of a 3? Would the game just go to OT or would there be a redo with Creighton getting the ball back with 11 seconds to go and the game now tied? To me, unless there is a stoppage of the clock right away on the play in question (out-of-bounds, a foul, time-out), they shouldn't be able to retroactively review a play.

---

They would not redo it. It would be similar to all other 3's that are reviewed. They are reviewed at the next TO and play resumes from the dead ball spot.

The bigger question is if everyone that left would be allowed back in? Not many realized the play was being reviewed and by the time it was announced, 75% of the people left.

This brings me to my IWB and TedBaxter Irritation of the day. Who in the he!! leaves a game with 2 minutes to go and it is a one possession game? Who leaves in the last minute with a similar scenario? WOW, I could not believe these bozo's. I hope they made it home 30 seconds earlier because of this ... :mad:

The rule got changed a few years back where play won't stop to review until there is a timeout or in this case after the game.

My question is WTF were they thinking in reviewing this in the first place? You mean to tell me that not one of these turd refs didn't see that Matt was close to a foot beyond the three point line. Clowns, but what do you expect from Mike Stephens.

I found this: "Prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations prescribed by Rule 2-12.3, the officials must recognize a potential correctable error and signal to the scorer that an instant replay review is required. This review shall take place at the next electronic-media timeout except during the last 4 minutes of the second period or the entire overtime period(s) during which time the correctable error time frame in Rule 2-12.3 must be used."

I can't find what the hell Rule 2-12.3 is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamostradamus

I found this: "Prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations prescribed by Rule 2-12.3, the officials must recognize a potential correctable error and signal to the scorer that an instant replay review is required. This review shall take place at the next electronic-media timeout except during the last 4 minutes of the second period or the entire overtime period(s) during which time the correctable error time frame in Rule 2-12.3 must be used."

I can't find what the hell Rule 2-12.3 is.

---

Art. 3. When the officials’ error as in Rule 2-12.1.e is made while the game
clock is running and the ball becomes dead after a successful goal, it must be
recognized and corrected by an official before the second live ball. (Exception:
11-2.1.b.1)

If I'm reading this right (insert snide comment here), the rule can lead to a mega cluster.

Imagine that instead of being down 2, MU is down 3. Carlino's three ties the game and Creighton opts not to call timeout and instead runs down court. Being tied, Marquette does not foul and Creighton misses the shot. OT, right? Wait, so time expiring is the first dead ball and John "Inept" Gaffney and Mike "Ted Valentine is my idol" Stephens go to the monitor and determine the shot was a 2. Result, Creighton wins.

Clearly, MU would have fouled immediately if they are down 2 but instead played D because the refs ruled it a 3 and the rules don't allow the refs to check right away.

Query: Do the rules allow the refs to stop play and check in this instance? Or does the "and the ball becomes dead after a successful goal" mean they can check right then as the clock stops after a made field goal in the final minute? If not, a big part of me wants this scenario to happen in a National Championship game. Imagine the uproar. Heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MayorBeluga

If I'm reading this right (insert snide comment here), the rule can lead to a mega cluster.

Imagine that instead of being down 2, MU is down 3. Carlino's three ties the game and Creighton opts not to call timeout and instead runs down court. Being tied, Marquette does not foul and Creighton misses the shot. OT, right? Wait, so time expiring is the first dead ball and John "Inept" Gaffney and Mike "Ted Valentine is my idol" Stephens go to the monitor and determine the shot was a 2. Result, Creighton wins.

Clearly, MU would have fouled immediately if they are down 2 but instead played D because the refs ruled it a 3 and the rules don't allow the refs to check right away.

Query: Do the rules allow the refs to stop play and check in this instance? Or does the "and the ball becomes dead after a successful goal" mean they can check right then as the clock stops after a made field goal in the final minute? If not, a big part of me wants this scenario to happen in a National Championship game. Imagine the uproar. Heh.

---

The official has discretion. The rule states "before the second live ball". In the last minute, the ball is dead with a made basket, thus they could review it immediately with the successful basket. If that was close play or in question, I would have guessed that they would have reviewed it immediately. None of the officials really questioned it and to call for a review would have given both teams a "free" time out. Instead, they let play continue and if one team called a TO, they would have reviewed it at that time, otherwise they wait until the end. The rule, IMHO, is written with the "before the second live ball" wording for just this purpose. Otherwise, they would say first dead ball, which would be either a stoppage in play or time out. Remember, this rule is to cover everything after the last media timeout.

In your query and if it was in question, the review would have been immediate.