Am I the only one that thinks Miss. St. should have gotten the ball with .4 on the clock after Kentucky's last second shot? Kentucky in-bounded the ball in the frontcourt with 2 and some change left on the clock. Ball is lobbed into the lane, tipped and caught by a Kentucky player who puts it up for a lay-in that goes. To me, it looked like the ball dropped out of the net with .4 left on the clock. The officials correctly consulted the monitors for what seemed like forever and finally counted the basket and left the floor. Miss. St. didn't seem to argue much but I bet they'll have a little something to say after watching the tape. .4 isn't much to work with but they should have been given a chance IMO.

Do NCAA rules provide for the 1 second time lag? If so, the decision was correct. You can't expect the timer to stop the clock that quickly earlier in the game, so you can't give it to them now. If it had been at 1.1 second when it went through, they could reset it to 1.1, but if it's at a 1.0 or less, no reset, game over.
Assuming, of course, that NCAA has the same lag rule as Fed.

Having watched the game with a referee buddy of mine, we thought for sure they would put the .4 back on the clock. The actual time the ball went through looked to be in the relm of being able to go to the monitor and put .3 or .4 back on the clock. Just an observation from a barstool!

#1 - There were playing at MSU. If MSU has anyone to be mad at, it's their own timer.

#2 - This isn't the NFL. If they go to the monitor to specifically see whether a shot was released in time or not, they cannot look for other things that may have occurred.

Men's and Women's NCAA Basketball
Use of Replay/Television Monitor

When using the monitor for a specific reason, no other judgments shall be made or penalized. (Exception, Rule 4-66, A.R. 42)

Officials must remember that judgment always comes first. The monitor does not replace judgment! You use the monitor to verify what has already occurred, NOT to add something you missed or no-called.


#3 - While they don't call it lag time, they do have the same rules reqarding stopping the clock as the NF does.

"When a held ball or violation occurs so near the expiration of time that the game clock is not stopped before time expires, the period shall end with the held ball or violation."

"When a foul occurs so near the expiration of time that the official timer cannot stop the game clock before time expires or when the foul occurs after time expires but while the ball is in flight during a try, the period shall end when the free throw(s) and all related activity have been completed."

When the clock stops after a made basket in this situation, it is the timer who stops the clock, not the Precision Time system.

I don't think the officials went to the monitor to see if any time should still be on the clock. That doesn't appear to be an issue.

How much time?
 

How much do you think can happen in that amount of time - a tap, a shot(bank shot at that), a made basket and a clock to be stopped and you want .4 sec to be left? Without slow motion and some common sense - not a prayer! Maybe the clock operator started the clock .1 seconds late? Who knows and who cares? Replay is used for errors in timing not to second guess all of those who are involved. Absolutely no reason to put any time on the clock. It makes a travesty of a great game. Too, many other things had a bearing on the outcome of that game. Great no call!!!

I hate to wet on your daisy's but the referees CAN go to the monitor to correct a timing mistake or error (rule 2 section 5 covers this - PP 35-36). Granted, it would have to be asked for by the coach, but I would have if I had been the MSU coach.

Well, I hate to rain on your parade but I never said they couldn't.

I said they cannot go to a monitor for one purpose and then make a ruling on something else they see.

Did the MSU coach as for a ruling on the time? No.

Did they go to the monitor for that purpose? Evidently not. They looked to see if the ball was released before time expired or not.

Let's just say your post seemed to imply that they could not and cited a different section of the rules.

The next time, before you "wet my daisy's," perhaps you should read what's written and not assume something is implied. :)

Maybe you should not be so ambiguous with your posts.

Sorry, but I accustomed to dealing with adults who can read, comprehend and understand, not adolescents who make assumptions and percieve implications because they don't read what's written.

If you'll point out what's ambiguous, I'll be glad to edit it to your satisfaction.

Look, you are the one that started all this pizzing and moaning about my OPINION on what was posted. If you are so insecure with yourself that you cannot take a little criticsim of your posts, maybe you should reevaluate why you use this forum? It is not supposed to be used for such things as this, I was just point out wht I FELT was an ommission on your part.

If you are an official, do you react the same way when someone criticize's your officiating?

No, I believe you were the one who popped off about something you didn't understand. You didn't read thoroughly, you jumped to a conclusion and that conclusion was wrong.

And, as I said, if you'll point out what was ambiguous, I'll be glad to attempt to change it.

Ok. I can see that nothing is going to resolve what you perceived as a slight to your vast knowledge of basketball rules. I merely used a bit of levity to add to the discussion and point out another section of the manual to refer to.

And no, don't edit your post. It's your opinion and perception and I do not want you to ponder anything that might take you away from more sporting endevors and confuse you further.

No, it's not opinion or perception. The information I QUOTED is directly from the NCAA's website. If someone with more information can prove me wrong, I'll gladly admit my mistake. But I don't think you're the one to do it.

But I do find it curious that you've gone from telling me that I was wrong to I implied something to it was only my opinion I posted. Can quite figure out what you're thinking, can you? :(

I'm fully aware that timing errors can be reviewed. I never said or implied they weren't. I stated, with reference, that the officials cannot view a replay for one reason and rule on something else they see in the replay. I can't understand why you have so much difficulty with that.

I don't make this stuff up.

You do not make it up but you sure get offended eaisly when someone points out another section in which to look for information. If someone misinterprets what you post and tries to add a little levity to spice up the post, just take it with a grain of salt. I was not questioning your knowledge of the rule, just a different place in which to find information.

Yes, but you stated that I was wrong, because you didn't comprehend what I wrote. When others read the thread, they then believe the information is incorrect, even though it isn't. I can't allow that to go unchallenged.

I have no problem with someone pointing out that I'm wrong, WHEN I AM WRONG. I misread a post yesterday and submitted an incorrect ruling. My mistake was pointed out and I admitted my mistake. But in this case, I'm not wrong, unless someone else can provide a different reference or approved interpretation.

Now who is reading and implying? I simply clarified what you had written and refered to a SPECIFIC rule page that had ALL the information on use of TV monitors. YOU jumped out took it to the extreme. END OF MY POSTS ON THIS!

Good, that means I get the last word! :D

You stated, "I hate to wet on your daisy's but the referees CAN go to the monitor to correct a timing mistake or error (rule 2 section 5 covers this - PP 35-36)."

Your "I hate to wet on your daisy's..." indicates that you're saying I was wrong. If not, why post it? One would simply say, "Yes, but the referees CAN go to the monitor to correct a timing mistake or error (rule 2 section 5 covers this - PP 35-36)."

If you're going to post something, either have the balls to stand by it or be willing to admit you're wrong.

As for clarify something I wrote, you didn't clarify anything. You simply confused the issue.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

[Edited by BktBallRef on Jan 14th, 2004 at 02:29 PM]

Whear?

Thank you Chuck for pointing out my misteak! :D

Let me go change it! :)

Tony, what is the exception referred to here?

It has to do with catching and shooting versus a tap with .3 seconds or less remaining.

Here ya go, jar, I went back and found the play referred to.

A.R. 42. With 2/10 of a second remaining on the game clock, Team A is awarded a throw-in at the division line. A1 passes the ball to A2 who (a) catches the ball with both hands while in the air and throws the ball into his or her basket or (b) does not catch the ball but taps it into the basket. In both (a) and (b), the ball is in the air on the way to the basket when the game-ending horn sounds.

RULING: In (a), when the game clock displays 0.3 seconds (3/10 of a second) or less and play is to be resumed by a throw-in or a free throw, a player may not gain possession of the ball and try for goal. When this situation occurs, the official shall blow his/her whistle and the game is over, unless a flagrant personal foul (women: flagrant foul) or intentional personal foul is committed on the play. Whether the try for goal was successfully attempted before the expiration of time is inconsequential. In (b), when the player does not possess (catch) the ball but taps it into the basket before the period-ending horn sounds, the official shall use replay equipment, videotape or television monitoring, when available and located at courtside, to ascertain whether the tap (try) that will determine the outcome of the game was released before the sounding of the period-ending horn. If, in using the monitor, the official determines that the successful try was a catch (the player possessed the ball), the official shall cancel the goal since it was erroneously counted and can be corrected per Rule 2-10.1.c.

This link to the NCAA Officiating Bulletins seems to indicate that the officials could determine if the basket counted and if the timer made an error in stopping the clock.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske...10bulletin.pdf

Jay, I agree that they can, IF that's the predetermined purpose of the review. If their sole purpose for checking the replay was to determine whether the shot was released in time, then nothing else could be corrected if it was observed during the review. See the link below and scroll to the bottom of the page.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske.../20030218.html

Agreed. But it is also possible that they went to the monitor to see when the clock stopped. I did not see the game. And all of us can only presume as to why they went to the monitor in the first place.

Oh, absolutely, you're correct. Personally, I think if they did, they wouldn't have put time back up. So, we really have no way of knowing what they were looking at.