Saturday, November 28, 2015

Ivy League takes no action on Penn buzzer-beater

Read the full statement that the Ivy League issued about the play.

Ivy League takes no action on Penn buzzer-beater


I have a short piece in this morning's Inquirer about the Ivy League's announcement that it basically can't do anything about Dan Monckton's game-winning buzzer-beater in this past Saturday's Penn-Brown game.

After I got back from Providence, I asked the league office for a statement on whether the play could be reviewed. I also asked if there was any formal procedure for Brown to protest the result, as I'd overheard Bears coach Jesse Agel saying after the game that he wanted to file something formal with the league office.

Here is the full statement from the league:

The Ivy League has reviewed the end-of-game situation in last weekend's Brown-Penn men's basketball game in an effort to ensure the officiating crew followed proper procedure. According to the NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules Committee, there are no provisions for recognizing or allowing protests (Rule 5-5). The final determination of the outcome of the game rests with the game officials and their approval of the final score (Rule 2-4.4).

There are procedures in the NCAA Basketball Rules Book to review end-of-half and end-of-game fouls, shots, and timing situations when a monitor is present (Rule 2-13). Without this device, it is the direct knowledge and judgment of the officials that prevails.

In other words, because there was no monitor, it was up to the officials' judgement. Once the basket was signaled good and the officials left the floor (which is also key), the result was final.

I found a really grainy video of the shot via the video link at the bottom of this page.

For the wonks among you, here are the provisions in the NCAA's Men's and Women's Basketball Rules that are referred to above:

Rule 5, Section 5: Protests

The NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Rules Committees do not recognize or allow protests.

Rule 2, Section 4: Officials' Jurisdiction

Art. 4. When all three officials leave the visual confines of the playing area at the end of the game, the officials’ jurisdiction has ended and the score has been approved.

Section 13 of Rule 2 deals with what you can do when a monitor is present, but there is nothing in that rule that deals with what you can do when there is not a monitor.

There will be a quiz on all this some day. Or not.

I'll be back tomorrow with the weekly stats compilation. I figure I might as well pass the time on the train to Boston putting it together.
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy: comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog
Soft Pretzel Logic is's college sports blog, with a primary focus on the University of Pennsylvania. You'll also see coverage of the Big 5, other major college sports events in the region, and the annual Penn Relays track and field meet.

Jonathan Tannenwald
Latest Videos:
Also on
letter icon Newsletter