I⌠donât think thatâs the rule?
He would have to re-establish himself in bounds first which he does not. His left foot is out of bounds, he lifts it to step in bounds and catches the ball before the left foot touches in bounds. Ultimately itâs whatever, sometimes you lose on some bullshit. The refs started the clock late on Ron Harper Jrâs buzzer beater against Purdue last year, so (shrug).
Yeah I mean Iâd have to see the play for that but what Bilas says there is not true
Iâm also seeing now maybe the rule is that only one foot is needed to re-establish. Oh well.
Did they end up reviewing it?
I never saw a good replay, but it didnât look like he was in bounds live.
No hes actually right. Thats a huge miss by the refs especially with everybody bunched up
Thatâs a rough way to lose. Would rather that happen to Ohio State instead
I wasnât aware of any of this until I watched the B1G post game show this morning. Wow!
I agree with you. Certainly Rick Pizzo and the guys on the B1G studio crew agree, too. The kid was clearly out of bounds, and in fact was about a foot or so OB and took several steps while OB. The official was right there, not more than about 15 feet from the player who was OB. In fact, a one time the official was OB, himself, so he simply couldnât have been blocked from view. The whistle should have been blown as soon as he touched the ball at.0.9 seconds, and the ball should have been awarded to Rutgers. At the very least, the VERY least, the officials should have looked at a replay.
This was a travesty and affects the entire B1G, not just Rutgers. Truly a sad ending to a valiant effort by Rutgers. The record will show Ohio State won, but they didnât. At the end of the season their record will show one more victory and one less loss than they should have. The entire B1G, or at least the top half in the final standings, will be affected by this travesty.
Edit:. On further review, and I have the replay frozen on my TV right now at the precise point Tanner Holden first touches the ball, he has not established himself inbounds with both feet as he touches the ball. In fact, and I am looking at it right now, his left foot still appears to be out of bounds, but in any case he certainly hasnât âestablished two feet inbounds,â which he must do in order for the play to be legal.
Absolutely, they should have gone to the monitor, which they could do in the last two minutes of the game. If they, then, ruled it was a âlegalâ play, I would still disagree, and Iâm guessing everyone from Rutgers and most of the B1G would, too, but at least they would have done the right thing in using the technology they had available in that situation.
I agree with your words completely. Imagine being Rutgers and having a 2-0 record in December with wins over Indiana and @ OSU. This can and will affect the league race and/or the bubble.
In watching the highlights it does not seem to have been reviewed and that boggles my mind that it was not reviewed or isnât reviewable. We spend so much time reviewing inconsequential things and here we have a game deciding play and it isnât reviewed? I guess I donât know the rules but if its not reviewable that needs to be fixed immediately.
OK, after further review (what a conceptđ), it seems the play wasnât reviewable because the whistle hadnât blown. Now THAT (not reviewable) is ridiculous considering the piddly*** nature of those reviews in the last two minutes. But the whistle wasnât blown because the official blew the call twice. He blew the call(s) twice, but not the whistle, and the actual outcome of the game changed because of it. It is unbelievable, to me, that a game changing moment like that is not reviewable.
They can spend FIVE MINUTES reviewing whether a ball last touched the fingertip of an offensive player when the defender clearly hit the ball, knocking it out of bounds, spending an inordinate amount of time checking every angle to somehow see if that offensive playerâs fingertip was somehow still touching the ball for maybe a hundredth of a second after the defensive player hit it out of his hands, and oftentimes it does not determine the final outcome of the game,. But they canât review this? My goodness. This play, this error, in the OSU vs Rutgers game, which they say is not reviewable, literally changed the outcome of the game.
He was out of bounds, I agree. Bad call. But Bilas reasoning was wrong. You can touch it after going out of bounds
Parrish I thought made a good point on the CBS podcast. If Tanner Holden had shot that right at the 3 point line they could go and look whether his toe was on the line or not, but they canât look at whether he came in from out of bounds to shoot it. Makes no sense.
I get not wanting to add replay reviews to every single situation and honestly my preference would be to have no replay reviews at all, which I get wouldâve been bad for Rutgers last night. But the way itâs implemented is silly. Games get held up to check whether thereâs 27.2 seconds or 26.9 seconds (and the team with the ball dribbles aimlessly for five seconds anyway), but that end-of-game sequence isnât reviewable?
While Iâm on my salty fan soapbox Iâll just note that Rutgers was screwed in a similar way against Penn State last season when their defender jumped over the sideline guarding an inbound pass at the end of the game (upper right corner).The dude in the black shirt three rows behind Penn Stateâs bench is pointing it out while the ref four feet away misses it. In this case Mulcahy ended up turning it over but Penn State missed the shot. But this is twice in a 12 game span that refs have choked in the final seconds on a clear sideline violation to the detriment of Rutgers.
Iâve seen it called before, so I went to the rulebook.
EDIT: Key thing is that itâs a judgement call based on âown volitionâ and âmomentumâ. So itâs basically called only if a ref decides a player is trying to get an unfair advantage by going out of bounds.
IMO, the new-ish NBA rules of everything being reviewable has worked out fine I think
I asked a ref friend and he said two feet. Maybe thatâs the NFHS rule tho. Regardless, it was really close. Looks like the passer was out of bounds tho and that may have been more clear
Itâs one foot. I believe âtwo feetâ is a football re-establishment rule that everyone (including some refs) thinks is also a basketball rule.