Tennessee-Baylor ending

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by caref
bodies flying all over the place on rebounding situations all game and no calls and then the final non-call, call. Very inconsistant and yes I did watch it all the way through.

Well, I didn't see the game, so I can't really comment on the officiating. Gotta say though "bodies flying all over the place on rebounding situations" is not really a reason to declare the officiating as being that bad. Every single contact situation is different and each has to be judged on it's own merits. Do you know what official made that final call? And can you give examples of where that call was inconsistent with previous calls/no-calls made by the same official? Or are you saying that all 3 officials were consistently wrong on contact calls the entire game?

[caref]

I am not going to get into a call by call replay. As I watched it I was saying to myself that this is very inconsistant and then when the final call was made I was in disbelief. I think calls like that make the entire officiatng community look bad. I will defend officials by all means, because it is a difficult job, but if cannot criticise a poor job then we continue the assumption that we stick up for our own no matter what they do.

There is nothing wrong with making the tough call in a critical situation. Lat night was not one of them.

[FHSUref]

Originally posted by chayce
The question I always ask is: would I have called the same thing at any other point in the game? I am sure the calling official probably has asked that several times since the end of the game. I believe that consistency from beginning to end is the primary measure of a well called game.

I couldn't agree with you more! Too often you hear that if it is close, let the players decide the outcome. So what does that mean? Swallow your whistle? I disagree with that. It is a foul/violation with 12 minutes to go before halftime, it is a foul/violation with .03 seconds left in the game.

Think of it like this. Lets hypothetically see it as an offensive violation i.e. travel. Now lets say that the official decides that "ahh the game is close and time is about to run out so I'll pass on that, it won't hurt anyone." Just as he finishes thinking that, the shot falls through the net for 2 points and the win. Looks like he got himself in a bind with the 'let the players decide the game' mentality. Granted this is hypothetical but it still proves a point that fouls and violations need to be called regardless of the time and score of the game.

[Schradog]

Someone PLEASE provide input on whether the impact of the collision is grounds for stopping the clock. If the time of the whistle being blown is indetermineable (who blew it...trail? center? lead?), are you allowded to go to the monitor and put the clock back at the time the impact occurred.

[ShadowStripes]

Originally posted by Schradog
Someone PLEASE provide input on whether the impact of the collision is grounds for stopping the clock. If the time of the whistle being blown is indetermineable (who blew it...trail? center? lead?), are you allowded to go to the monitor and put the clock back at the time the impact occurred.

Yes, because it was an end of game situation. The referees can go to the monitor and (1) check and see if the foul occurred before the expiration of time and (2) replace time on the clock at the moment the foul occurred. There is no lag time principle in NCAA rules so although the whistle may be a split second slower, time would be replaced at the moment of the foul.

[just another ref]

The refs decide the game with a shocking call.

Gimme a break. If this call happens any other time in the game it goes totally unnoticed. I personally thought it was a good call, the Tennesse player about to gain control when the Baylor player enters the picture and hammers her. Questionable call? Aren't they all? Shocking? Certainly not. If the foul is not called and Tennessee loses in overtime would the Tennessee people have complained about this play? You better believe it.

[caref]

ESPN is right. A bad call is a bad call.

[johnSandlin]

ESPN is wrong. The call that was made needed to be made, because of how obvious the foul was, and because that call had gotten made so many times through out the course of the game.

As officials we are taught, if it is a foul at the .2 mark of the first half, then that exact same call is a foul at the .2 mark of the second half. The thing coaches want and these coaches received last night was a good consistent game called by the officials, and that is what these coaches got.

ESPN was wrong, as they have been in the past. But, then the media is always paid to be wrong when it comes to officiating.

[caref]

disagree, terrible call

[smoref]

caref, are you just acting this way for the sake of argument or are you 8 years old? You have stated that you think it was a bad call (which is wasn't), but that is all that you seem to say.

DO you think that this would not be a call that you would have made with 15:00 left in the 1st half or do you think the the official should have just swallowed his whistle to allow the game go to OT?

I can see if your point, but not agree, if you think that he should have swallowed his whistle but this was definetly a foul. I recorded the game (and I am not a fan of either team) so I could break it down from a referees point of view and I have watched the replay 20+ times. The Baylor player clearly came from OOB and slammed into the Tenn player causing her to fall down.

IMO it was a foul no question but the timing just happend to be bad. I am glad that it was called

[Schradog]

I've been poking around in the rule book on this one...dead ball occurs when a foul occurs. But the clock doesn't stop until an official signals to stop it. And the monitor can indeed be used to rectify a timing mistake. I just wonder how many supervisors will endorse the official's decision, and how many don't because that's who really matters in this case--good whistle or should it have been a no call?

[caref]

to be it was a common sense no call. Actually I am at work and cannot take too much time to write a long reply.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by caref
ESPN is right. A bad call is a bad call.

A bad call is a bad call. A bad call is not shocking. It happens too often to be shocking. Shocking is a word used to draw attention. ESPN needs attention to stay in business, they have a job to do just as we do. In my opinion, the use of the word shocking to describe this play is shocking.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by caref
ESPN is right. A bad call is a bad call.

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt up until that one.

Bye-bye, credibility.

Carry on and have fun, fanboy.

[caref]

It's not Watergate. I will go out on a limb and say that someone is telling that officials today that he probably should ahve held his whistle. Heck, he was probably sayng the saem hing last night in the locker room. It was an ugly end to a great game. We can go round and round about making hat call with 15 minutes to go or in the first half, but when have you ever seen such a call in such a big game. A few bodies banging over a loose ball as time expires happens all the time. If I make that call and I hear the buzzer as I am sounding my whistle I waive it off and we go overtime. That game deserved overtime for everything that is great about the game. If it is a foul that changes the complexion of the play call it. If the players was foulded on the layup that she missed call it, but not the call that was made.

Advantage/disadvantage.

I will stick by my guns and say it was the wrong call at the wrong time and ruined what was otherwise a great game. I normally don't watch the woman much, but I was glued to my TV set and then to have that happen was awful.

By the wasy I didn't care who won as I said I don't watch the woman much, but