(11-18-2019, 01:56 AM)M T Wrote: You missed that at some point around then, a Gonzaga player dribbled to the lane with the ball and jumped to shoot. One of our players (probably Belibi, but don't quote me) got her hand on top of the ball (blocking the shot). When the shooter landed, with both her hand and the defender's hand still on the ball, this is a held ball immediately (Rule 6-4.2, which also applies to a jump for a pass that is then pinned to the player's hand by a defender's hand) That's why Missy kept showing the scorer a hand signal of one hand coming down on the other hand (which is NOT a signal in the rules).
[If the defender's hand is no longer on the ball, and the ball never left the shooter's hand, I believe the correct call is a travel. I've seen refs call it a held ball, but the rules are pretty clear it isn't. If the shooter lets go of the ball, then the ball falls (typically to the floor, but that probably isn't required); that's a block that anyone can recover, including the shooter. I am not sure what to call it if the shooter dribbles the ball (starting while still off the ground); I think that should be a deflection and a new dribble, and legal even if the shooter had already picked up his/her dribble.]
At the time of the held ball, the arrow pointed at Gonzaga, so they got to inbound the ball (continuing their possession). It was probably 4 possessions later (G (including the held ball, resulting in an inbounds on the end line away from the benches), S, G (the kicked ball was probably during this possession, where the two inbounds were on the end line near the benches), S) that Missy noticed the arrow was still pointed at Gonzaga. She did not seem happy having to explain it to the scorer, who was not quick to change the arrow.
I think you'll find that a kicked ball is irrelevant to changing the possession arrow. (I don't know where that quote came from. Perhaps you were putting it as though Missy said it, and not really quoting anyone. But if you were quoting someone, you're right to say it made no sense.)
(11-18-2019, 12:27 AM)76lsjumb Wrote: At one point [I think in the 3rd quarter], when GU had the ball and the possession arrow was in GU's favor, we tied them up and a jump ball was called with 3 seconds left on the shot clock. They took the ball in and, on the inbounds throw, Kiana apparently kicked it with her foot. The shot clock was then re-set to 20 seconds -- which I understand, as that is the rule now for a kicked ball by the defense when the shot clock is under 20 seconds.
What I DON'T understand, however, is that the possession arrow did NOT flip to Stanford, a fact which certainly confused a whole lot of people, including many at the scorer's bench, ...and me. Missy came over during a break in play a minute later and explained to the scorer that, "because the kicked ball was a violation that occurred before anyone touched the ball on the inbounds play, the possession arrow does not change. It's as if the jump ball never happened."
That doesn't make any sense to me, since the determination of who gets possession following the tie-up is based on the existing possession arrow and, as soon as that team gets the opportunity to throw it in [with the accompanying loss of the possession arrow], the game has moved on. It seems to me that, whatever happens thereafter shouldn't impact the flipping of the possession arrow.
Can anyone confirm whether this is, in fact, the rule, or did Missy and the gang get it wrong? And, if it is the rule, what is the rationale?
Having now had a chance to look at the YouTube stream [hey, it's a slow news day...], you and I are both talking about the same play, but, based upon what I saw from my "live" vantage point in the first row directly behind the scorer [and review just now of the YouTube video], I find I must disagree with your chronology of events.
I concur that the episode started with Belibi's stuffing of the shot [this happens at 3:29 left in Q3], which was correctly ruled a jump ball [with 3 seconds left on the shot clock]. Because the arrow favored GU, they got the ball out of bounds. On the throw in, the ball hits Kiana's foot and is ruled a kicked ball. The refs signal to [correctly] put 20 seconds on the shot clock [much to Kiana's dismay, but that's the rule]. However, at that point [based on my recollection, not from anything apparent on the video], the arrow was initially switched to Stanford but then was switched back to GU on Missy's insistence. We then got a little vocal behind the scorer's table while play resumed and, upon a subsequent stoppage of play --within the next 30-45 seconds, IIRC, and, indeed, the incident mentioned earlier in this thread where Missy "iced" Kiana -- Missy came over and gave the explanation to the scorer that I quoted above. BTW, I used quotes for Missy because I was able to hear the whole conversation and, with some allowance for extraneous noise [but without any need to translate from Ukrainian], that's my best recollection of what it sounded like she was saying. In other words, she definitely was NOT upset that the arrow was still pointing to Gonzaga, she was explaining [as indicated] why it was supposed to be pointing to Gonzaga, where it, indeed, remained until the next jump ball situation.
Maybe at the next game, after apologizing for yelling at her, I'll try to get an explanation from the scorer. If she'll still talk to me... :-)
One simple explanation for yesterday's close call: at the end of regulation, we were 9-17 from the FT line; GU was 19-24. In OT, we were 8-12 from the FT line. Shoot our OT percentage in regulation [or, indeed, not even that well] and we win in regulation by a few.
I believe that, going into yesterday, we were something like 75% from the line [i.e., our OT percentage].
Practice, practice, practice...