Minnesota Controversial Ending

[paulsonj72]

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

[Kelvin green]

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.

[chapmaja]

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.

[deecee]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

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.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

NFHS Case 5.6.2 Sit F ... 2.2.4 Sit C ... 2.2.1 Sit A

5.6.2 SITUATION F: Following the end-of-game signal which has Team A leading 62-60, the coach of Team A sprints after the game officials and shouts profanity at the referee who has just left the playing court outside the end line. RULING: The referee shall charge the coach with a flagrant technical foul and the results of the two free throws will determine whether an extra period will be necessary. The jurisdiction of the officials had not ended as the referee was still within the visual confines of the playing area. (2-2-4)

2.2.4 SITUATION C: Team B leads by a point with seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. A1 releases the ball on a try, but the noise level makes it difficult for the covering official (umpire) to hear the horn. The umpire signals a successful goal. The referee definitely hears the horn before A1 releases the ball, but does not realize the umpire counted the goal. The officials leave the visual confines of the playing area and are
not aware of the controversy until the scorer comes to the officials’ dressing room. RULING: Even though the referee could have canceled the score if the officials had conferred before leaving, once the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area, the final score is official and no change can be made. In situations such as this, it is imperative that officials communicate with each other and that they do not leave until any problem regarding scoring or timing has been resolved.

2.2.1 SITUATION A: During a state championship series contest in which the state association has authorized the use of video replay, A4 releases a try as time expires in a tie game; the try is successful. The covering official rules that the attempt was still in A4’s hands when time expired and waves off the basket, forcing overtime. RULING: Since the try occurred at the end of the game, with zeros on the game clock, a review is permissible. The replay official rules that the shot was released prior to the expiration of time. The game officials count the basket and declare Team A the winner.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

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.

[BoomerSooner]

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by deecee

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).