Minnesota Controversial Ending
 

On Friday night in Minnesota in a state tournament qualifying game there was a controversial ending. Albany MN though they had hit a shot at the buzzer to win the game and qualify for the state tournament. AFTER discussion the officials ruled the shot was no good and Melrose MN won the game 52-51. Only video I could find was this.

https://twitter.com/MnhsHoops/status...47277786447872

Based on the video C scored it big at least three times. Then ran to other end of floor... and then from off camera came back on and waved it off....

While C has clock and the shot... seems primary thing to get here is the buzzer/light/and shot..

If the Trail or Lead have something different they should have come in hard and fast and discussed it....

It’s hard to tell from video what was right call but the procedure they followed just didn’t look good.

Wow. There's def not enough training for situations like this at the HS level but there ABSOLUTELY should have been conversation during a dead ball before this took place where you cover things that might happen. Slot needs to be prepared to make a call, and once he does all three officials should convene and see if anyone has anything different. Then repeat the signal to the table and leave the floor together.

Watching the video and reading the twitter comments, I think there are some very interesting concerns. The key thing with the comments is the wording of when the jurisdiction ends. Did the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area? They certainly left the court, but if they had gone to the scorers table to discuss the call, they left the court as defined in the rule book.

You don't need training. You need common sense. Close call like this get together as a team (even if someone scored it - and for the record I think the initial call was wrong). Then make your decision.

Slow down, get the teams to their benches first and make it clear that you (officials) need to confer.

It may look bad that they left the visual confines, but they could have just been in the corner of the gym. In the end the correct call was made about 30 seconds after the initial one, and anyone that falls back to the rules I'm sure they are doing it "for the kids". Because the lesson to learn is that an unearned win is better than one that is earned, and technicalities still count as a W.

The didn't leave the visual confines....the corner of the gym is the visual confines.

It was clear in the video that they were there as coaches and fans were clearly watching them discuss the issue even if you can't see them directly.

Ultimately, they did it right....right procedure and right call. The only thing that would have looked better would been to have done so in the court itself, but that isn't what the rules require.

From playing the video and repeatedly using pause, I was able to decide that the ball is clearly in the player’s hands when the clock hits 0.0, of course I can’t hear the horn. I believe that the try was late.

The C counts the goal as he is leaving the floor. It is obvious that the T has a different opinion and he stops the defending coach near the table, then comes across to his partners. Notice that it is the T who waves off the goal upon returning to the court while the C stands next to the L.

I have to wonder who the R was. My guess would be that it was the T and he knew that the try was late so changed the decision.

The officials did appear to leave the court. It looks as if they left the playing court just outside the endline.

Per NFHS Case 5.6.2 Sit F, they did not leave the visual confines of the playing area.

Furthermore, see case 2.2.4 Sit C for this...nearly exact... scenario. Per the case, they actually ruled everything correctly....presuming that the shot was indeed after the expiration of time.

Lastly, case 2.2.1 Sit A allows for video review. I presume that Minnesota does not allow this for their state tournaments. If not, perhaps this game will push them to include it going forward.

MN does have limited video review in state tournament games, but only for the games that are actually televised (about half the quarterfinal games, and all of the semi-finals and finals). Games in the consolation brackets do not have video review.

This situation would've qualified for video review, but this was NOT a state tournament game. This was a section final game, and the winner advanced to the state tournament.

MN Post season works like this: each class (A, AA, AAA, AAAA) is divided up into 8 sections, with each section having anywhere from 8 to 14 teams in it (the smaller classes usually have larger sections, mainly due to the advent of a bunch of tiny charter schools that have sprung up in the last handful of years). Each section has a single-elimination tournament, with the semifinals and finals being at neutral sites. The winners from each section advance to the state tournament.

The state tournament then consists of 4 classes of 8 teams apiece (the 8 section champions). The losers in the quarterfinal round go into the consolation bracket, and then compete for the "consolation championship" (ie: 5th place). The losers in the semifinals play in a 3rd place game.

Do teams really enjoy playing in the third place, or consolation bracket? There was a reason the NCAA got rid of the third place games years ago. I am surprised there are actually teams that really want these games.

This is different than a regular season event where teams are guaranteed a certain number of games.

Citations ...
 

I'm sure they don't enjoy it as much as they would if they were playing in the championship game, for obvious reasons.

But I think there's still some value to be had. Some of these teams are traveling 5 or 6 hours one-way just to get to the tournament sites in Minneapolis... that's a long way for a high school team to go for a potential one-and-done.

The consolation games I worked last weekend, the teams, coaches, and fans certainly seemed to be into it, and for the most part it was a great atmosphere.

I have a couple of questions from watching the video several times and believe the crew may have been debating either of them, and thus the delay in making a ruling.

1. Were the light and buzzer synchronized with each other?
I was able to pause the video at a point with the light on and then heard the buzzer go off after clicking play. I don't believe they were in sync. Obviously the light takes precedence with regard to ending the period, but it could have thrown the crew off, especially if they were debating the next question...

2. Does the light meet the definition set forth in the rule book for a light, and if not do we use the buzzer?
I don't believe a light above the clock above the backboard, meets the definition set forth in the rule book for a red light/LED signal. If this configuration has been approved in Minnesota then so be it, but by the book, the red light is supposed to be behind the backboard or an LED light on the backboard. Is it possible they discussed this?

Personally, I think the shot was released after the light but before the buzzer, so I could seriously see them discussing my first question. I'm curious as to if anyone would give my second question any thought. Does placing the light in a place other than designated by rule require us to use the audible signal to determine the end of a period?

Honestly I can't say I would have questioned it during the game, but maybe during pregame? I've also been fortunate to have never worked a game with the light placed as such.

PS: After looking at the twitter with the video, I found a still photo in which there appears to be a red light behind the backboard, although it is not illuminated and the light above the clock is illuminated with 0.0 on the clock. Obviously there is no sound with a still photo.

I think you are over analyzing things. It's still a HS game and I wouldn't expect all the bells and whistles that the rules necessarily cover. The wave off was the correct call, and I didn't even think it was all that close from my first viewing.

From a practical standpoint, I agree with how the situation was handled as the ball was in the shooter's hand when the clock showed 0.0 and the light was on.

That said, yes, I am over-analyzing the situation for the sake of theoretical discussion. I'm honestly curious if others have opinions on the light placement. For example, if you were aware of the placement before the game, how would you pregame it? Is the proper placement worth mentioning to game/site management or your assignor? Other than watching the end of a prior game, I've never done a pregame horn/light check but given the slight lag between the two in this situation, I'm questioning if I should in pregame. I've never had a situation like this with a slight lag between the two (I have had situations where the horn has failed to go off entirely).

Lights, Camera, Action ...
 

Only one of our regular season sites has lights, and we always pregame that light "trumps" horn. We would do the same for a state tournament site.

Always feel like the light is irrelavant unless you can use video replay. During live game action we have to watch the players and listen for the horn to determine if the goal was good or not.

For The Good Of The Cause ...
 

FWIW ALL quarters are webcast. Consolation and 3rd place games are not

I will just say from my experience working my own tournament, I discussed in every game that if we had a last second shot and it was close, get together to make the call. We do not need to be in a hurry. If you have a call as the C or T, just make the call if it is obvious. If there is any doubt, we should get together before a decision is made. No double signals are wanted or needed. Make one ruling.

That is what I discussed with my crew when we worked the last 5 games of the tournament. There was hardly a game where we could hear the horn anyway, so this is what I suggested. The big guys get video replay in their games, we don't. So we might as well take our time if every other level can review the video.

Peace

Yup, make your call if 100% sure. If not get together and confer.

Some do, some don't. It is different than college in many ways. For the NCAA, it was money as much as anything. For HS, there is a distinct drop in attendance in the consolation brackets for some levels/teams. But, when a small school's teams have traveled 500 miles to get to a game, they're going to want to see them play no matter whether it is in the 3rd place game or the championship.

And the teams playing generally take it very seriously. I've had some mail it in in games I've worked, but more often than not, they're trying to eek out one more win to finish the season on a win.

I had a wreck league game this season with an interesting end of quarter situation.

The gym we are in only has a scoreboard on one end, so even though I was the lead (2 man system), I am (per league directors mandate), supposed to also have the clock. This is a gym with about three feet of end line space, so not much room to move back.



The situation was as follows: Ball inbounded from near the corner with 1 second left to the corner. Player catches the pass attempts a shot prior to the buzzer with his foot just behind the 3 point line. I am trying to watch the foot, for contact of a defender stepping out on the shooter, and watch for the ball off the shooters hands before the horn.

I, after trying to watch all parts of this play, try going to my partner to make sure we agree on how everything played out. His response " That's your call, I have no idea."

Sometimes its hard to go to your partner when he isn't going to be helpful. You just have to pray you have partner(s) that are more helpful than he was.

After I ruled it a good basket, the defense then wanted to argue the 2 or 3. I was 100% sure this was a three. I couldn't be 100% it was out of his hand on time.

Oh, and being Rec League the idea of a pre-game is "your going to toss this game." My partner that night didn't show up until the 2nd quarter.

And your play situation is exactly why this is a bad idea. A lot of people promote it but trying to look at a clock on a wall nowhere near the play itself and a shooter at he same time is likely to make things worse than just looking at the shooter and listening for the horn as is supposed to be done. The odds that the clock will be behind the shooter relative to either officials is a low probability proposition. Then, you have to concentrate so much on the numbers, you're likely to miss a foul. Looking for something to light up is really only a good idea if that thing is on the backboard where it is far easier to see it light up (not focused on it saying a specific number) and the shot at the same time.

The Goal Shall Count ...
 

It's wreck league, in some cases being close enough is good enough. Nothing is on the line except fragile egos.

Near The End Of Periods ...
 

Agree. Assuming no red lights, near the end of periods, as the lead, or as the trial, I'm noting the time on the clock at the beginning of play, making sure that the clock properly starts (if applicable), and then directing my attention to the players, looking for fouls, and violations, while counting down the seconds in my head, and listening for the horn. If a whistle sounds before the horn, I'm looking at the clock again to make sure it stops in a timely manner, and putting time back on the clock if I have direct knowledge via my mental countdown, or (hopefully) my observation of the clock.

You mean the two fans in the stands for the games are NBA scouts looking at these guys to be the next Kobe. (Normally they are wives/girlfriends who are guilt tripped into coming to the game to watch).