Quote from: Collegeville Magic on January 23, 2007, 11:08:10 AM
Korn- You're correct. A time out can only be granted to a player with posession of the ball, both feet in bounds and in control of his/her balance.  You're not supposed to get the "falling out of bounds on the sideline" call, the "one foot down on the way out" call, or the old "jumping after a loose ball and calling for the timeout before you land" call either.

Just want to clarify:
Rule 5-10.1.c
Timeouts not granted "when an airborne player's momentum is carrying him/her out of bounds or into the backcourt."

Key word here = 'airborne'

You can in fact get the falling out of bounds timeout if you have one foot in bounds and control of the ball. Happened in the Oklahoma/Oklahoma St game the other night. Official did not initially grant the timeout request, then reversed his call and awarded it; ruling the player did in fact have control of the ball and one foot on the floor (though he was falling out of bounds).

Quote from: Korn Lover on January 23, 2007, 05:52:31 PM
So, with 8 seconds on the clock and the Cobbers up by one, a Knight makes a steal at the Cobber end. Falling out of bounds (One foot on the "A" in Carleton on the end line-right in front of me), she calls time out and GETS it! Ref totally blows the call and what's worse, his partners do nothing to help him.

If the "A" in Carleton is inbounds, sounds like a good call. If not, either the ref blew it or you saw it wrong.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=421919

Quote from: blazerball on February 26, 2006, 12:34:00 PM
gacbacker,
Chapman is a Pool B team whereas CSB and GAC are Pool C teams. There are different criteria used to decide Pool B and Pool C teams.

Not different criteria, just different teams eligible in each Pool.

Oh, the last two spots are close, but it is also clear. Chapman and Rockford are clearly ahead of the others, based on the criteria. The NCAA will stick to their system, in my opinion.  They have eliminated 'lobbying' for teams by setting the criteria - they could almost have a computer spit out the selections this way - right or wrong; agree or disagree; this is how they operate.

For this reason, this is why Pat and his crew are almost exactly 'on' every year with their projections. They understand the criteria and how the teams are evaluated. I'm also pretty sure they don't believe that all the 'right teams' are selected, but they understand the NCAA 'system' and can crunch the numbers.

d3d3 -

You must understand the primary criteria if you want to project what the NCAA will decide. The records of opponents teams lose to is not one of the criteria. QoWI is the way a team's wins and losses are considered, so I guess in a way that is already taken into account.

The primary criteria - All 5 are considered, with none being more important (supposedly), although the committee seems to lean heavily on regional record

1. Regional record
2. QoWI
3. Head-to-Head
4. Record -vs- Common In-Region opponents
5. In Region results vs regionally ranked teams

With that said, I think all four are a lock -
1. Wash and Jeff
2. Maryville
3. Chapman
4. Rockford

POOL B             reg. rec.(%)   QoWI     Common Opp.   Head-head    -vs Ranked
1. Wash & Jeff  18-4 (.818)     9.818        none               none                none
2. Maryville       21-4 (.826)     9.28          none               none                none
3. Rockford       19-6 (.760)     8.88          none               none                none
4. Chapman     11-4 (.733)     9.133        none               none                 none


Sorry -
Piedmont       17-6 (.739)     8.78
Thomas More 17-6 (.739)     8.78

1. Wash & Jeff  18-4, 22-4
2. Maryville  21-4, 22-6
3. Rockford  19-6, 21-6
4. Chapman  11-4, 18-8


Sorry -
5. Piedmont  17-6, 22-7
6. Thomas More  17-6, 20-8

I've got Wash and Jeff at 15-4 in region. I think you missed the Thomas More loss.