the foul was called...fine. When you go to the monitor...do you check for the whistle? Since the whistle stops the clock...I don't think they did. Marcy Weston's statement claimed they checked for the whistle, which I think is impossible here. Impact occurred at .2 seconds remaining. They should have gone OT.

Or were they checking to see if the official's arm went up before the horn sounded? Since we are talking about signals here, then there must be a time lag between the time the whistle is blown and the time the clock actually stops ... miniscule perhaps, but still a lag. Does the equipment adjust for the lag, or is it up to the officiating crew (table people included) to make that adjustment?

In any case, the NCAA is going to review the whole thing when they have their meeting in New Orleans this weekend. And I assume that they will publish an explanation. Sure hope so!

I still think that it was a good call, however unfortunate and nerve-racking it may have been to all of us who were having fun watching David stick it to Goliath. Kind of reminds me of the movie where Billy Crystal makes a call in the final seconds of an NBA game and the home crowd is ready to lynch him. The fan boards are buzzing with all kinds of crazy stuff. My favorite one is : 'ESPN will do anything to make sure that they have a UConn/Tennessee matchup in the final game.'

Confirmed Judge is a FANBOY
 

I was just looking around to see some reaction at Baylor and I clicked on a message board and found a very interesting post.

It is as follows from
http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54111

This is a just a portion of the post.......

Apparently the NCAA knows that (some of, when it is in their favor) its own rules exist. Do their officials? It does not appear to be so.

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........

The person's user name is Tree G. It is good to know that he doesn't have a vested interest in the game and was just posting here as a person who has "been an official for 24 years"

No Precision Time for NCAA tourneys...
 

They are not using Precision Time for either tournament even when the facility has the equipment.

Permit me to go off the subject a bit...That game prevented Stanford from going to the Final Four?? Stanford would have beaten Baylor??

I try not to, but if we stop the game for every 0.2 seconds that improperly runs off the clock, we're going to have 7 hour games.

Also, if 0.2 slips off of the clock with 15 minutes in the game, a team is going to have 15 minutes and 20-30 shot attmpts to recover. If there should be 0.2 on the clock, and we give them 0.0, they have no recourse - no chance to come back, take a shot, etc.

Not all of the arenas have Precision Timing.

As to why the NCAA doesn't require it . . . . I dunno.

Judge GUILTY of being a major FANBOY
 

I love that I found the exact same post as Judge's original one on this thread at a Baylor fans website.

http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54111

Re: Judge GUILTY of being a major FANBOY
 

Don't quite think so. The write-up you posted is, for the most part, articulate, spelled correctly, and fairly factual. No way did JudgeJudy post that.

I don't know how many times on this forum I have seen officials say that the whistle stops the clock, not the foul or the violation. Now it seems in this case that the foul stops the clock and not the whistle. Which is it?!?

That's what I want to know...The whistle should have stopped the clock. Not the act?? When they went to the monitor, they put back time based on when the act occurred...not when it was determined the whistle blew. So what if the foul was called?...as was said much earlier this week, that was the calling official's decision to make. When the crew chief spoke to the coaches about his decision, I thought he said "the foul occurred at .2". Lesson learned on my monitor games...

posted by gsf23

I don't know how many times on this forum I have seen officials say that the whistle stops the clock, not the foul or the violation. Now it seems in this case that the foul stops the clock and not the whistle. Which is it?!?


I thought that it is different for NCAA and NFHS. Isn't the difference that in NCAA they have the replay, so they can accurately make a decision of when the foul occurred? Of course, I may be wrong.

Coach W

I'll post this once more for those who can't seem to understand it.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THE WHISTLE CAME BEFORE THE HORN SOUNDED OR NOT. THE ONLY ISSUE IS DID THE FOUL OCCUR BEFORE TIME EXPIRED. IF IT DID, IT'S A FOUL, EVEN IF THE WHISTLE SOUNDED AFTER THE HORN.

NCAA rules permit the officials to go to the clock for ANY timing issue. This was a timing issue in that they has to determine if the foul occurred before the horn. They can also put the correct time back on the clock when they determine what it should be. This came directly from an NCAA official who worked in the Tournament this year.

It will be very interesting to see if there is a change in the rule book next year regarding end of game situation.

There defenitly does not seem to be a concensous of the proper way to do it.

ALso I wonder if the will require precision timing at all venues next year.

Why would there be a rule change? What rule would be changed? :confused:

I don't think there was anything improper about the way the situation was handled. The only question is the foul, was it a foul, should it have been called? But from a procedure standpoint, there was no error.

All D1 schools will be required to have PT within the next 2 or 3 years.

Thanks, Tony.

Hopefully this one will get through to the dexterheads who still don't understand. :p

I have seriously thought about taking officiating to the next level so I am here to learn, especially on the close ones.

I have seen monitors used when the clock kept running by mistake, and when the clock didn't start on time, and can understand monitor use then.

I am confused about this being a situation of a mistake with the clock. To be consistent, and if there are known equipment problems at Lloyd Noble, should the refs have been going to the monitor throughout the game then?

Thnking about what some are saying about calling it the same through the whole 40 minutes, why do this just at the end of a game?

Fanson,
Welcome to the forum.
First, officials can only follow the rules.
Secondly, the game could slow down to a crawl.
The game would be as exciting as watching paint dry.
With known timing problems, a substitute timing device, or timer, may be used.
mick

First, when we discuss calling the game the same throughout, we talking about calling the same foul at 10 seconds that you would at 15 minutes.

Second, the clock shows full seconds during the first 19 minutes of a half. If an error occurs where seconds tick off the clock during the game and the officials recognize it, then they do correct the situation. Looking at the monitor every time the clock is stopped to be sure it stopped properly is OBVIOUSLY not necessary or feasible.

At the end of a game, if for example, a foul is called, a shot is made, or a violation occurs, the officials are allowed to review the play to determine if there was an error in stopping the clock.

Personally, I don't understand why people keep bringing up the issue of putting .2 seconds back on the clock. It was the correct thing to do and it had nothing to do with Tennesse winning the game. If the foul had occurred with .9 seconds remaining, then it could really have been important, as it would have given Baylor an opportuniy to score.

THere were no "known equipment problems." The officials were simply making sure how much time should be on the clock. Let's suppose there should have been .9 left and the officials didn't go to the clock and correct the problem. Then Baylor would really have something to complain about.

So when all is said and done, why are you complaining about the officials going to the clock? :confused:

And we all know what we call an official who insists on calling each game the same way in the first 30 seconds, at the 15 minute mark and in the last 30 seconds.

Ex-official.

I think there is no dout in most people’s minds that the foul even if it did occur should not have been called. As I was tought when I went to classes to get certified thats what we get the big money for.

Good to have the replies, Mick and refs. I got some new information.

My purpose here was to learn about the how the rules apply to this kind of situation. I am not complaining about the officiating.

As for equipment problems, I saw that discussed somewhere else saying that it has not been right long-term at that arena. It just raised the question to me of what should be done when there are those kinds of problems, so Mick was helpful on that. I have no idea or opinion if they should have used a substitute timer in this game.

Also it looks like I need to be more precise with my terminology. By talking about consistency in 'calling the game' I should have said 'officiating', assuming that covers the decision to go to the monitors for a time determination.

So, you're saying, if the foul did occur, it shouldn't have been called. Is that correct?

There are plenty of people who that the proper call was made. Don't lump us all under YOUR opinion because you don't agree with it.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 8th, 2004 at 08:25 PM]

Just FYI, equipment problems doesn't mean that the clock has physically broken. It refers in this case to the physical limitations of a human operator hearing a whistle, recognizing a whistle, flipping a switch, and then the clock responding to that switch - all in 1/5th of a second. Even the best of us timers can use the help in that situation.

Anyone knows the rules but only the good ones know how to apply them. First unless you have an obvious foul which we did not in this case so you had to 2 players playing the ball and not all contact is a foul. You have to use your experence as an official to determine if a foul has occured.
If you want to decide a game of this magnitude on a very suspect call be my guest. You shoul only have the official who made the call look at the film because they know when they saw what they thought was a foul.

Who are you, Bill Walton? Come on. Are you one of those people who thinks when the ball is rolling on the ground and one guy dives for it and takes out another guys legs, that it should not be a foul. The ball was loose. He was going for the ball. There are 2 players playing the ball, in this sistuation.


The official thought it was a foul??? How about that. I thought he called a foul because he thought it was not a foul. Thank you so much for clearing that up.

My, aren't we a bit presumptuous?

I wish one person would read the response and not read into it for what they want it to mean.........

aucella, I think you can work through w/a good psychiatrist. But don't beat yourself up about it. You can't always have the same opinion as everyone else. I am sure that your mom still appreciates you..........

this is my last post because this forum is so counter productive........ you people will not admit to the human side of refing and in my final statement I'm getting rid of my whistle since it serves no purpose??????

[Edited by aucella on Apr 6th, 2004 at 08:05 PM]

Aucella,
We admit to the human side, we take exception to your presumption that "most people" see it the same way you do. As for your whistle, don't worry, I'm sure the sporting goods store will take back a brand new whistle without much problem. You might even get your whole $2 back.

Put this issue to bed
 

Against my better judgement I will make on last statement My whistle is not even close to being new so I doubt I would get my money back but telling officials that the blowing of the whistle has nothing to do with when the foul occurs is just bad teaching. It will not make better officials but it will encourage lazy ones.

Re: Put this issue to bed
 

Okay, serious question now. How does it make lazy ones? I'm not seeing the logic here.
Kinda the definition of "non sequiter" to me.

Adam

Re: Put this issue to bed
 

Sorry if you disagree withg the rulebook, but the statement is true.

When a foul occurs near the expriation of a period, the issue is when the foul occurred, not when the whistle sounds.

Case in point:

Last year, I'm working a boys 3A state quarterfinal game, end of the 1st half. I'm lead, shot goes up and misses, A1 creams B1 from behind and tips the miss in just before the horn sounded. I came out strong, waved the basket off and called the foul. The foul was on the tip, before the horn, even though my whistle came simultaneously or just after the horn. That's the correct call. And I received many compliments on having the willingness to make the call.

See it and call it. When the whistle sounds is of NO consequence. It has nothing to do with a lazy whistle, nor is it an encouragement to be lazy, or even teaching. To suggest such is ludicrous. It's simply the rule. And if you're teaching otherwise, you're DEAD wrong.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 7th, 2004 at 12:06 AM]

Re: Re: Put this issue to bed
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

...end of the 1st half. I'm lead, shot goes up and misses, A1 creams B1 from behind and tips the miss in just before the horn sounded. I came out strong, waved the basket off and called the foul. The foul was on the tip, before the horn, even though my whistle came simultaneously or just after the horn. That's the correct call. And I received many compliments on having the willingness to make the call. See it and call it. When the whistle sounds is of NO consequence.

All quite right. Which brings this to mind. There seems to be as much or more focus on the .2 which was put back on the clock as on the foul call. If the call had been (NFHS)
foul before the buzzer, free throws with the lane clear, would that have been somehow easier to accept than the fact that "All this happened at .2!!" I guess that the bottom line for one side is still "They made a call at the end and we lost," no matter what the call was.

Re: Re: Re: Put this issue to bed
 

And had the best NFHS refs in the country been doing that game, that's exactly what would have happened.

By NCAA rules, though, they did everything right. If coaches, players, fans, etc. don't like the replay rules, they should lobby to get TV monitor reviews taken out of the game altogether.

Thanks
 

Your right most people don't see things the same way and making contraversial statements can bring heavy debate. Most of the debate was very positive. The only thing I wanted to bring out was would all of you have this made that call in that situation because if someone had wiped someone out with .02 seconds left I would have, but in my judgement this did not take place. In closing my final point you guys put me in my place and rightfully so I do plan to stick around this is just the kind of healthy debate I like(most of it) some got a little personal(a very small percentage).

attaboy!
 

Good call, aucella.
We learn the process when we share ideas.
mick

<HR>
The reception of our perception may be the inception of a conception.

Aucella,

For what it's worth, I understand your point and agree with your assessment on whether this really was an infraction that needed to have a whistle. It was a loose ball that two players were vying for...and neither had true possession of it. The Tennessee player was certainly closer to the ball...and the Baylor player knocked it through her hands...and then contact was made. Personally, I'm no-calling it and we're going into OT.

[Edited by Indy_Ref on Apr 7th, 2004 at 10:36 AM]

The reception of our perception may be the inception of a conception.

[/B][/QUOTE]It may also cause a deception.

Glad you've decided to stay.
 

aucella, the issue is that the official could have no way of knowing how much time is on the clock. he's watching the play, not the clock. I've had many situations where I knew time was winding down and was expecting a buzzer. The wait can seems endless sometimes. A clock starting at 7 or 8 seconds can take what seems like forever to be played. You can't stop officiating just because you're waiting for the horn to sound.

There's simply no way he can know there's .2 left.

Re: Glad you've decided to stay.
 

There's simply no way he can know there's .2 left. [/B][/QUOTE]

Tony,
Well said. I totally agree.
I've tried to count down as well, but that only helps to know that the buzzer is about to sound.

aucella, I too am glad you're staying. That's why I keep coming back. To learn from many different viewpoints.

that was my way of feeling everbody out and see what's what...... Knowledge of the rules + experience = hopefully the right calls

Huh?
 

I don't understand.
Could you clarify?
mick

I just don't really see how you can say the foul was on the Baylor player and not the Tennessee player.(or vice versa) The ball was between them and both were going for it. The Baylor player just seemed to be more aggressive. Neither one had any more claim to it than the other. That is the only problem I have with the call. Having said that, I didn't have to make that split second decision and I'm glad I didn't.

Because the Tennessee player had her spot on the floor, and the Baylor player knocked her out of it. Most people (from what I've seen) have agreed that this is a legitimate foul with 10 minutes left in the game; even with 10 seconds left. The debate seems to be that some officials say it absolutely should not have been called because of the time and situation.

Here's a question for those in the group I just mentioned. Should it have been called with 5 seconds left and Tennessee down by 2? Or .2 seconds with Tenn down by 2?

I belong to a live in the same room forum of refereees and a vast majority agree no foul in that situation and thats what i was refering to (some with vast NCAA and NBA experience)one of my mentors worked Larry Bird games ect....
Before anyone reads into that I am sure a lot of you out there have a lot of experience and are well respected in this game!!!!

Just think if the call woul dhave gone agasint Summit? can you imagine her outburst, I promise she would have gone crazy, shje works refs the whole game, if this woul dhave happen to her team I can promise you she would not have said it would have been a call a 3mins or .02. A reporter asked her what she would have thought if it had been agaisnt her team and instead of answering the question she glared the reporter down. Glad sh e got her butt whipped in the final.

The coaches' opinions of this call couldn't be more irrelevant.

Whereinthehell are you getting your info from? Off of the Baylor fanboy site again? You're completely wrong- also again. Summit answered that question in an interview on ESPN. The link to that interview has already been posted in a thread here. Summit said that if it's called a foul in the first 10 minutes, then it should also be called a foul with .02 seconds to go. In other words, once again you're full of dexter, dexterhead!

Get over it, fanboy. Baylor lost. Go root your football team on to to glory. They're a class act, just like you.

What in Dexter's name is going on in our schools today? Teachers aren't overpaid, at least not those in charge of teaching decimals. It's 0.2, not .02 for the love of Dexter!

Thank you, PA Coach.

:D

I can assure you she would not handled this the way Mulkey did. That e-mail from the Baylor post was not mine by the way, I just wanted to see a reaction and yes I am a Baylor fan, but it owuld not have mattered who won the game, it was a terrible call..period....Just like the game between uconn and duke was a game that was poorly officiated. We should be finding ways to get great refs in great games reguardless of who their network is. if you do not like my opnions that is fine I don't care. I am sick of watching games that are officiated so poorly.

Previously, when fans came here and did nothing but vent about how bad the officiating was in their team's loss, they were banned? Why has that changed? :(

Because I am a an official not a fan, I always let people around me at games know when officials are doing a good job.
We have lost many a game where the offciating was outstanding and I say so, this is a case of it not being outstanding but poor, just becuase you offciate does not mean you have to put up with poor performance. I am just as harsh on my own performances and always listens to other refs feedback to get better. This call was a travesty to women's basketball and I believe it is because of the "officating network and how officials are chosen". It has to be becuase there were some great officials sitting at home that would have done the Baylor game and the unconn/duke game justice.

Yup, you're an official, and you sit in the stands and critique the officials to the fans around you. And I'm Spiderman.

You're just another fanboy who doesn't know squat about the game of basketball. Your team lost. It's over. Go away.

(expletive deleted- Brendan)

[Edited by BBall_Junkie on Apr 12th, 2004 at 08:55 AM]

nice response, whats wrong with a little constructive critcism. I promise you I can ref cirlces around your ).)

Whoinhell are you trying to fool into thinking that you're an official? No real official would ever dream of coming here and displaying such a pronounced and complete lack of integrity in their avocation like you have shown. Even rookie officials wouldn't do that- more than once! You're just another pot-bellied fanboy, sitting in his La-Z-Boy with a six-pack hollering at the tv. They lost, goober. Honest. Get over it.

How old are you anyway, to be that obsessed about a damn game? Maybe a better question is how mature? Think about it.

I am long past the game, I was over that the next day, what I am not past, is as a referee I am sick of watching crappy officiating. I expect alot more from our profession that what I witness on a weekly basis in the Big 12(womens). There are some great refs in the Big 12 and know 4 of them personally, but there plenty who are there, who should not be period. They are there because of gender,race or the system picking them. My pet peeve happens to be lack of common sense and understanding how to apply the rules not just as they are writtne but with the spirit included. marci weston's written response to the call says exactly that, a referee should be aware of what situations they are in because it does matter what time of the game it is. Go back and watch the films of both games I mentioned and tell me they were offciated well. You will not be able to. I am saying this should not happen at games at this high of a level. offciating should never be the center of attention after a or during a game and these two games it was and the commentaors were correct.
Something is wrong with the system that allows this to happen. Earlier in the year a lady ref called a Baylor player for stepping out of bounds, when the replay clearly shows they did not. I defended the ref to my friends because we have all at times been out of position to make calls, I did not defend the fact she called something she did not see, If you do not see it you do not call it, if you miss it becuase you did not see it I can live with that. She guessed and possibly impacted the outcome of a game at a critical time, not because she is not a good official but because she used poor judgment. I am passionate about getting it right and I am passionate about our fraternity who never admits when they are wrong. This prevents us from improving as an organzation and it is one of the biggest complaints the public has with officiating in general.
I will say it again get your ego out the way it is ok to be critized when it is deserved. It is just my opnion and I am sorry you want all refs to think alike and not show a displeasure in a poorly offciated game.

Ah, now all of your b*tching is starting to make a little more sense to me. The officials that are bad are either women, black or political appointees. My, my! And all along, I thought that we were just dealing with your average, ignorant fanboy. Turns out now that we were dealing with a sub-genus of that species (with the emphasis on "sub")- the ignorant, bigoted fanboy.

Baylor lost, goober! You can scream at the wife and kick the dog- or vice/versa- but nothing's gonna change that. Wipe your tears up with your sheet, put it back over your head and get on with your life.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 10th, 2004 at 10:50 AM]

Isn't it about time that this thread, and Judge, both got dumped?

I've asked for that a couple of times but to no avail.

This guy isn't an official. He sought this site out after his girls from Baylor lost. If he was an official and had any interest in true discussion, he would have posted long before now.

No, he's just another Richard Cranium.