※ 引述《watching (cAMP的麻將太差)》之銘言： : ※ 引述《dh0104 (妳不在我身邊)》之銘言： : : 我沒看到這球...不過關鍵可能再於 Gardner 有沒有真正掌握控球權吧? : 如果我沒記錯的話，Gardner得球之前球已經碰到籃框了 我不太記得有沒有碰到籃框，如果有的話，那進攻時間一定要重新算，如果沒有， dh0104兄所說的「控球權的掌握」是可能的解釋，當時的情況我記得是 Gardner 搶下籃板（這時候沒問題），但接下來要移動時腳滑了一下，因此選擇運球行進 保持平衡，但球還是掉了，這就要看裁判認不認為 Gardner 算不算已掌握球權， 後來找了一下報導，似乎探討這球的不多，TSN有一小篇，作者的個人意見認為 是個bad call，附在後面作為參考。 The situation: With 1:30 remaining in the second overtime of his team's second-round game against Gonzaga, Arizona's Jason Gardner grabs a rebound from a missed shot by Bulldogs center Richard Fox. As Gardner loses his balance, in order to avoid a travel he wisely decides to dribble the ball once, twice, three times before it gets away from him. Gonzaga regains possession, apparently presuming it has a fresh shot clock to work at overcoming Arizona's one-point lead. Nope. The shot-clock is lapsing, because the officials either forgot to reset it or ruled Gardner had not gained possession. How one can dribble the ball without possessing seems to be an existential question only a referee can handle. The Bulldogs wound up committing a shot-clock violation and never scored again. Given the circumstances, it's no wonder Zags point guard Blake Stepp didn't check the shot-clock and missed that it was lapsing. Arizona deserved its victory. The Wildcats played 50 minutes to earn it. But both teams deserved competent officiating in such an important game. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.csie.ntu.edu.tw) ◆ From: 65.96.165.187