Foul? What foul? A foul is a foul only if I call it a foul. If I'm the Lead on that play, I'm not calling anything on that. Who gained an advantage? Nobody. Who was in a position to obtain possesion of the ball and score in the time remaining? Nobody. Was there contact? Of course, but there was plenty of contact in that game that was not called a foul.

I'm a little surprised that a foul was called, but I'm even more surprised that the officials got together, looked at the replay and decided to put .2 on the clock and award free throws. They got what all officials don't get....a second chance to make a correct call....and they BLEW IT.

Re: Clear???
 

Coach, please. ;)

Seriously, what is there to explain? There are two points for discussion here. Whas the contact advantageous? Was the game clock relevant in making the call? Obviously, he thought it was advantageous. Do we really need a public statement to that effect? We can debate officiating philosophy all we want (all the threads are doing that), but the rules are clear. With 10 minutes left, this is a foul on Baylor. With 4 seconds left, it's a foul on Baylor. It's a pretty big burden to ask the lead official to keep that close an eye on the clock so he doesn't call a foul with .2 left on a rebound.
Do you honestly think Reece Davis or Stacy Dales-Schuman are going to hear the officials' statement and say, "Oh, I see his point. Never mind my 4 hours of ranting yesterday."

Maybe it is because I'm a coach and not an official, but I agree that something could have been said after the game about the call. Not necassarily(sp) by the official that made it, but by any of the supervisor, assignor, evaluator, etc. who I'm sure was at the game. If they just explained the rule, and why time had to be put back on the clock in a press conference-type setting, everybody may not still like it, but at least they are getting a little info on what the rules are, and why the situation was handled the way it was. The way it is now, the only fans who know what the rule says are those that take the time to find a place like this board.

Coach W

What whould the official say in a press confrence? I saw a foul so I called it. What else is there to say?

Very good until the last full sentence.

My understanding is that the officials can't go to the replay to determine IF a foul occurred before time expired, but their purpose was to determine how much time should be put back on the clock, if any. My understanding is that if on the tape they had seen the foul after time expired, there would still be (up to) two free throw attempts, with the lane cleared.

All this hoopla about explanations is just so much smoke in the wind. The supers/assignors made their statement by placing that crew out there. The official made his statement by deeming that contact a foul. We may agree or disagree but we don't need our hands held to interpret what happened. The crew did this right. Making this into some conspiracy requiring testimony, explanations, or apologies is ridiculous.

(changed for spelling...)

[Edited by tharbert on Mar 31st, 2004 at 08:17 AM]

Didn't I read somewhere on this board that the NFL does something like this. Kind of a "war room" that is in place that the media can go and ask questions about calls, rules, etc. I can see good things coming from an official source of rules, interpetaions, mechanics, etc.

Maybe this would squelch the talking heads that do the Monday morning quarterbacking.

Personally, I think the call was good. I've developed too much respect for Hawks Coach to think he is criticizing the refferees or the call. I think he, and I, would like to see a mechanizim in which rules, thought prosseses, etc. could be explained for everyones understanding. Not necesarily coming to an agreement.

Thanks, Stan

moto-golf
 

It is clear to me that with all the differing opinions as to whether or not a foul should be called in the situation that it is of little value to have access to the officiating crew because the call in question (as are most calls) is a judgment call.

Most (I said most, not all) of the instances when officials are publicly reprimanded by leagues, supervisors, or assignors, are because of rules misinterpretations or mechanics situations. Only on some occassions have officials had their judgment questioned.

Every time a call is made, there are going to many people (fans, media, players, coaches, assignors, referees) who second guess the call. Which is why a lot of us decide to become referees, we all think we can do it better than the next referee.

Getting back to having access to the officiating crew to ask questions about certain game situations, in my mind, is not a great idea. Judgement is precisely that, judgement. Judgement cannot be a uniform discipline for every official, only guidelines and experience can help to the development of best possible judgement. Therefore questioning judgement is also an inexact science.

my .02

Re: moto-golf
 

Good point!

Re: Clear???
 

So first of all,the vast majority of calls we make are "controversial" to someone, somewhere...secondly, the rules are available, and the fact that very few of the media people (announcers, writers, etc) take the time to know those rules is no one's fault but their own...I will agree with icallfouls statement that this was a judgement call - one that in perfect hindsight (meaning sitting on my hind-end watching the play happen) I don't think I would have called...BUT, knowing two of the officials working that game (from camps, etc)I trust their judgement completely...as far as the monitor replay, they did exactly what the rules say they are supposed to do, so the only complaint the talking-and-writing heads have is based on the officials judgement...how does a supervisor, NCAA co-ordinator, or God Himself make a statement about judgement to these writers and announcers that would appease them???

Thanks Stan
 

On other threads, I have made it clear that I support the call. I think that Stan gets my drift, that it would be beneficial for all for officials to explain why calls are made. And I never suggested a press conference, but rather something along the lines of a press release with an official statement of explanation.

And I agree with San that the NFL is a great example of how post-game is a time where calls are clarified. Everybody here complains about how announcers for NCAA games get the rules and interps wrong. NFL announcers all know the tuck rule, because the NFL explained it rather than letting silence somehow indicate that the call was supported by rule. If you refuse to explain, you are contributing to the misconceptions, IMO.

I can buy that, Coach, and would even say that I agree with you...however, that is a rules issue and this is a judgement issue...a better example from the NFL would be holding calls on the offensive linemen...the rules are clear and holding could probably be called on a large percentage of the passing plays in an NFL game, but the officals use their judgement on which ones they call, and the league doesn't explain those types of judgement calls - just clarifies rules questions...so again, I'm not really sure what would need to be clarified from this call in this game...

OK, I kind of see your point. What I really thought should be explained is what are they looking at when they go to the monitor. Did the foul occur before the horn? Did they already know that and just want to decide how much time would be on the clock? Did they want to know if the whistle came before the horn? And in all of that, you could throw in for good measure that it was deemed a clear foul, the foul occurred before the horn, and replay confimred this so by rule the FTs were shot. Game over.

Or not - I can see that this one might not have merited that explanation. But there was enough controversy, that I could see an easy way to address it without sounding like you are simply defending a foul call, if those lines of communication were already established.

And I see your point...now don't we need to insult each other or something to prove we really belong on a discussion board like this??? Or I know, let's start making fun of the Yankees or the Sox or something... that way we can retain our manly images after seeing each other's points!!! :)

Here is what might be causing the confusion among us idiot fanboys (and fangirls). People are citing this ruling:

Art. 2. Contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a
loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally favorable
positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movement,
should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.

And they are interpreting this to mean that any type of contact is permitted while players are scrambling for a loose ball. I think that displacement is the key to the whole thing. If the Tennessee player had not been pushed to the floor then the official more than likely would have held his whistle.

Funny, but these same people who are screaming 'incidental contact' are the same ones who wanted a so-called 'over the back' foul on Tennessee during the same scramble!

It would be nice if the NCAA would publish an explanation for us so that we could all shut up, get on with our lives and stay off your forum.