|
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 lets give the benefit of a doubt) say it was to determine if the whistle was blown during the game.
It is only the NCAAs 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 NCAAs Rules. Protocol as a part of Appendix III of basketballs 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, NCAAs protocol for womens 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 NCAAs 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 Baylors 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 NCAAs 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
|