[Judge]

I agree it was a good no call on the over the back, the last foul called also should have been a no call by the sprit of the rules. Again is the ref technically correct in the right to call the foul? yes, that is not the question, it how you apply the spirit of the rules. I would not want to be on the floor with any ref that would make that call and affect that many people lives, the call had no commom sense, which is partly what is wrong with all of officiating now. I am always acutley aware of what impact my whistle will make on a game. You have been to camps, they are not teaching how to have consistent and good judgement, there a million tricks to the trade that help us do this. I have never heard that at a camp. I picked these up from refs who had been at the big dance, the final four etc. We have three refs on the floor now and your saying I am seeing it on tv is not going to fly. It was a poorly officiated game and the outcome was affected by the officating because of the lack of judgement by the ref who made the call at the end.
I can go on and on, I attend 20 college womens bb games a year and no less than 1/2 of the refs I watch are not qualified. This is confirmed by refs I know who are in these major leagues and one of these refs is considered the best in the buisness, 4 straight final fours!! Officiating camps are now all about generating money for the few idividuals that run them(at leats in my state) these same two people pick all the refs and they are more concerned about how many camps you have been to and how you "look on the floor" than are you a good ref or not. Judgement is what makes a great referee and the abiltiy to maintain consistency during the games so the players have a fair playing ground.
see below for why the monitor rule does not include the situation at the Baylor game...
one other thing had the Baylor player establised her position on the floor before she touched the ball? if not it should have been Tenn ball out with less than 1 second.

Every media report that I have seen, including the Knoxville News (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/gv_colu...2768406,00.html) and Yahoo (www.sports.yahoo.com) (so it is not just ESPN) say that the officials reviewed the monitor to determine if the foul was committed during game play – some (so let’s give the benefit of a doubt) say it was to determine if the whistle was blown during the game.

It is only the NCAA’s official reply that says that the officials used the monitor to determine how much time remained on the clock when the whistle was blown, with the result of .2 seconds being put back on the clock.*

The NCAA response continues, “In this situation, protocol states that officials go to the monitor to determine how much time should be put on the clock when play is resumed.”

Really? Where does it say that? “Protocol” is not some informal procedure. Protocol is a part of the NCAA’s Rules. Protocol as a part of Appendix III of basketball’s Officiating Guidelines for Both Men and Women, Section 6 on the Use of Replay Television Equipment, says that the monitors may be used to accomplish 11 different kinds of review – this situation was not one of them, so their use of the monitors is not allowed.

The officials did not know ‘how much time to put back on the clock’ without the improper use of the monitors. They have to break their own rules to put time back on the clock. The conclusion should be that they should not put time back on the clock at all.

Also this situation presents an admission that the stopping of the clock and the calling of the foul do not occur simultaneously. Defenders of the call say that a foul called in the last moments of the game should be called the same as a foul called in the opening minutes.

So to be consistent, every time a foul is called at any time of play, the officials should review the monitors to determine how much time should be put back on the time clock to account for the delay time in stopping the time clock. Of course, that does not happen. It should not ever happen. But it happened to Baylor at this very critical point. The NCAA is inconsistent.

Finally, NCAA’s protocol for women’s basketball, Appendix III Officiating Guidelines, Details on How to Gather Pertinent Information in Review Situations, states that when monitors are used in the review, the first thing the officials do, before ever looking at the monitors, is “…(i)nform both coaches of the reason for the review.”

What was Coach Mulkey-Robertson told? What was Coach Summit told? Were they told anything? This is a good rule when it is followed.** It commits the officials before the fact to their reason in using the monitors, and when followed, it should prevent supplying reasons that support the officials’ and the NCAA’s versions that have been fashioned to fit the facts after the fact. What happened here?

So the NCAA writes the rules, supplies the officials, issues the official statements, does not follow its own rules, enforces some of its rules but not others, and therefore, should be bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. In situations like these, the “protocol” is to construe the situation against the enforcer NCAA (ask your law professors and general counsel) and in favor of the one who stands to be harmed by their decision – in this case, Baylor.

The fact that the monitors were used at all should resolve the question in Baylor’s favor.
If the NCAA insists that the use of monitors was proper, but if the coaches were not given a reason for their use or if the reason told to the coaches differs from the NCAA’s position now, then the aggrieved Baylor should get the full benefit of any remedy available to them at this point. The NCAA should want it that way to keep from looking like a French Olympics ice skating judge.

Of course, there are many arguments against the officials’ handling of the situation before you reach the point of discussing protocol in review situations, like “What foul?”, but this just shows that the deeper you dig, the more the unfairness of the situation is exposed