|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 02:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 03:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
foulbuster
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 03:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
How could any referee not understand
I do understand any official who can justify supporting the call at the end of the baylor game. That foul if indeed it was a foul, (no one was knocked to the floor and the teen player was moving towards the ball also)should have never been called. You should always call fouls disavange advantage gained, and in this case the so called fouling player did not gain an advantage because the rebound was meaningless. I never call a foul at the end of a game unless it affects a scoring play or gives someone an advantage that puts them in position to score. If you want to be picky then the Tenn player fouled the baylor on the tip off the missed layup, she came over the back and made some contact. This play defenitely could have been deemed to be an advantage gained. It was passed on but the play at the end was not. Extrememly inconsistent. they also misapplied the monitor rule. the ncca should be ashamed they were not using precision timing also. I always take up for officials sionc ei have been doing this for 24 yearsbut this game was not well officiated. There were many missed calls, the pricinple of vertically was missed twice when they called fouls on Tenn post players, Dionne Brown took a shot and the ball never made it halfway to the basket and it was not blocked, thus a late whistle with a foul should have happened. I could on and on missed block charge and soem blocks that were clean that were called fouls. I would not want referee with this crew. Most referee's I know have too big of an ego to admit to a mistake and this is being clearly bourne out by the reaction of the ncaa. Guys this was the worst call in the history of womens college basketball.
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 03:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
As officials I think we all try to get into a position to see the play as it happens. Are there infractions that occur while we watch a game on TV? Probably, but the officials who are working a game do not have the luxury of that angle. They strive to be in the best position possible. From the officials angle, he/she saw a foul and called it. They administered the free throws and put the time back on the clock using the replay. Give em credit for giving their best effort. Both teams had 40 minutes to decide their own fate.
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 03:15pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Speaking of stature, I caught you and Chuck in that movie that you did together. Three thumbs up! 
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 03:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
bwaaahahahah
Hey judge, the verdict is in, guilty of being a troll in the first degree.
Sentence: banished to the bridge under which you crawled.
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 03:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would have loved to see Baylor win, and subsequently reach the final four, but no way do I see the play the way you did, Judge (are you Judge Roy, reincarnated - what's with this judge thing?).
The first rebound, the Tenn player stopped and went up vertically. She did reach over, but no way was there enough contact that I would expect a foul. The second bit of contact was hard, and very attributable to the movement of the Baylor player. The Tenn player drifted slightly forward, the Baylor player came hard back and through her. That Tenn player could easily have had a put back opportunity with .4 or .5 on the clock, so blowing the whistle was not an error. It was just a decision made knowing tha the clock was running down but not knowing if it was too low to attempt a put-back. And once blown, you go to the monitor to see the sequence, or you aren't doing your job.
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 04:08pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 04:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree it was a good no call on the over the back, the last foul called also should have been a no call by the sprit of the rules. Again is the ref technically correct in the right to call the foul? yes, that is not the question, it how you apply the spirit of the rules. I would not want to be on the floor with any ref that would make that call and affect that many people lives, the call had no commom sense, which is partly what is wrong with all of officiating now. I am always acutley aware of what impact my whistle will make on a game. You have been to camps, they are not teaching how to have consistent and good judgement, there a million tricks to the trade that help us do this. I have never heard that at a camp. I picked these up from refs who had been at the big dance, the final four etc. We have three refs on the floor now and your saying I am seeing it on tv is not going to fly. It was a poorly officiated game and the outcome was affected by the officating because of the lack of judgement by the ref who made the call at the end.
I can go on and on, I attend 20 college womens bb games a year and no less than 1/2 of the refs I watch are not qualified. This is confirmed by refs I know who are in these major leagues and one of these refs is considered the best in the buisness, 4 straight final fours!! Officiating camps are now all about generating money for the few idividuals that run them(at leats in my state) these same two people pick all the refs and they are more concerned about how many camps you have been to and how you "look on the floor" than are you a good ref or not. Judgement is what makes a great referee and the abiltiy to maintain consistency during the games so the players have a fair playing ground. see below for why the monitor rule does not include the situation at the Baylor game... one other thing had the Baylor player establised her position on the floor before she touched the ball? if not it should have been Tenn ball out with less than 1 second. 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 lets give the benefit of a doubt) say it was to determine if the whistle was blown during the game. It is only the NCAAs official reply that says that the officials used the monitor to determine how much time remained on the clock when the whistle was blown, with the result of .2 seconds being put back on the clock.* The NCAA response continues, In this situation, protocol states that officials go to the monitor to determine how much time should be put on the clock when play is resumed. Really? Where does it say that? Protocol is not some informal procedure. Protocol is a part of the NCAAs Rules. Protocol as a part of Appendix III of basketballs Officiating Guidelines for Both Men and Women, Section 6 on the Use of Replay Television Equipment, says that the monitors may be used to accomplish 11 different kinds of review this situation was not one of them, so their use of the monitors is not allowed. The officials did not know how much time to put back on the clock without the improper use of the monitors. They have to break their own rules to put time back on the clock. The conclusion should be that they should not put time back on the clock at all. Also this situation presents an admission that the stopping of the clock and the calling of the foul do not occur simultaneously. Defenders of the call say that a foul called in the last moments of the game should be called the same as a foul called in the opening minutes. So to be consistent, every time a foul is called at any time of play, the officials should review the monitors to determine how much time should be put back on the time clock to account for the delay time in stopping the time clock. Of course, that does not happen. It should not ever happen. But it happened to Baylor at this very critical point. The NCAA is inconsistent. Finally, NCAAs protocol for womens basketball, Appendix III Officiating Guidelines, Details on How to Gather Pertinent Information in Review Situations, states that when monitors are used in the review, the first thing the officials do, before ever looking at the monitors, is (i)nform both coaches of the reason for the review. What was Coach Mulkey-Robertson told? What was Coach Summit told? Were they told anything? This is a good rule when it is followed.** It commits the officials before the fact to their reason in using the monitors, and when followed, it should prevent supplying reasons that support the officials and the NCAAs versions that have been fashioned to fit the facts after the fact. What happened here? So the NCAA writes the rules, supplies the officials, issues the official statements, does not follow its own rules, enforces some of its rules but not others, and therefore, should be bending over backwards to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. In situations like these, the protocol is to construe the situation against the enforcer NCAA (ask your law professors and general counsel) and in favor of the one who stands to be harmed by their decision in this case, Baylor. The fact that the monitors were used at all should resolve the question in Baylors favor. If the NCAA insists that the use of monitors was proper, but if the coaches were not given a reason for their use or if the reason told to the coaches differs from the NCAAs position now, then the aggrieved Baylor should get the full benefit of any remedy available to them at this point. The NCAA should want it that way to keep from looking like a French Olympics ice skating judge. Of course, there are many arguments against the officials handling of the situation before you reach the point of discussing protocol in review situations, like What foul?, but this just shows that the deeper you dig, the more the unfairness of the situation is exposed
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 04:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Judge,
Take a deep breath and relax. There is no conspiracy here, and I agree with your opinion that the foul should not have been called. It's really simple. The contact that was called a foul happened before the expiration of time and was blown by an official. Before going to the monitor, a decision was made in the huddle that a foul had occurred before time expired, which a determination would have to be made about the amount of time that remained after the foul. The officals then went to the monitor to make the timing determination. First of all, don't listen to the news reports. Second of all, don't think there was a grand conspiracy being covered up by the NCAA. The calling official made a judgement call that a foul was warranted, and the proper procedure was followed from that point forward. I think the coaches could have been made aware of the situation before the monitor review, and I'm sure this was discussed in the postgame review and the followup with the officiating supervisor. But that hardly suggests that Baylor deserves some kind of recourse as an aggrieved party. You can question the judgement of the foul call (as I and many others have), but your efforts to create some kind of illegal coverup goes a little too far.
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 05:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Section 6. Use of Replay Television Equipment
Officials may use courtside replay equipment, videotape or television monitoring to: 2. To prevent or rectify a game-clock mistake. This includes: a. The failure to properly start or stop the game clock. The monitor may be used when, in the judgment of the official, a mistake has occurred; Not sure why they used the monitor. But if they felt the clock should have stopped with time remaining, they were free to check. If they were checking for the foul having occurred before time expired, they would have been incorrect - but that was my uninformed guess, not an official statement. With that little time left, they clearly should have looked to get time on the clock if possible - that only helps Baylor. The fouled player could have shot with no time on the clock. I still don't see anywhere that you answered why this shouldn't be blown as a foul. The official could not know the difference between .2 and .4, and .4 might be enough time to catch and shoot the rebound legally. So the whistle blew, which made the foul a fact. Are you arguing that they should somehow have known the time to the 1/10th second when they blew the whistle, or that they should have decided the foul came too late and ignored it even after having blown the whistle? Or somehting else altogether that I cannot fathom?
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 05:07pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Right there, in the book, plain as day.
__________________
"To win the game is great. To play the game is greater. But to love the game is the greatest of all."
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 05:09pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Also, will everyone cut the fake indignation (and whining) over resetting the clock in the last minute of a tie ball game vs. not resetting the clock in the first minute of the second half of a blowout? 
__________________
"To win the game is great. To play the game is greater. But to love the game is the greatest of all."
|
|
Wed Mar 31, 2004, 05:13pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good point Mark. And I still have the digital replay of the MD Duke game (Go Terps) where they had that painful delay setting the clock right after a foul at around the 7-8 minute mark of the second half.
I didn't see them talk to the coaches either, so it was probably just a conspiracy to help Maryland win in case they were down by 12 in 3-4 more minutes.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
