I noticed this article on ESPN this morning. It appears to have been posted yesterday. I looked through the first thread and didn't see it mentioned:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaato...ray&id=1771292

Rotto is my new hero!

My 2 cents? I think it was a no-brainer call with atrocious timing. From my angle squarely on the couch in front of my widescreen TV, it kind of reminded me of an open field tackle. Great defensive position, good call, clutch free throws... Good on Butts!

Wow! That is a good column. I know everyone has their own opinion, but as George Toliver told me once, "A foul is a foul no matter when or where it happens."

It stinks when a team loses by foul shots right before or after the buzzer, but how many foul shots and/or layups did they miss in the first 39 minutes?

Is this the same article that is referred to below in the "Interesting Article" post? I can't get it to load. It "generates errors" and shuts down my browser every time. As a confirmed Luddite who is reluctantly being dragged into the computer age, i would appreciate any advice on how I could read this.

Excellent Article
 

I would only contest his point that officials decide games all the time. Officials make decisions that impact games all the time, as do players and coaches. Players primarily decide games, officials rarely. But the quality of their decisionmaking impacts how games are played.

By the way, Rick Majerus was on Dan Patrick's radio show yesterday and was asked about players adjusting to refs calls versus refs calls adjusting to how players are playing a game. He was very even handed, complemented how officials call games, and said that refs usually do adjust to how a game is played (and he felt that they should). But he also pointed out that not all refs will adjust the same (and not all adjusting is the same from game to game), and that players need to adjust to how a game is being called.

If you're using a Netscape browser in the 4's, you will always have problems. The site is set up for Microsoft browsers over 5 and Netscape 6. If you download one of the latest Microsoft browsers, you shouldn't have a problem getting into ESPN. MS 5.5 should do it.

Ratto a hero
 

In the upper corner of the ESPN page to this article I found this related and totally dissimilar article. Feel free to read this persons point of view. Please note that this is not my opinion, nor am I commenting on the play as I was playing golf and riding my motorcycle at the time.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaato...ory?id=1770968

sounds like an unhappy fanboy

Or maybe a sportswriter with an alternate opinion
 

WBCA press release

ATLANTA, Ga. (March 26, 2003) -- Mechelle Voepel, sportswriter for both the Kansas City Star and ESPN.com, has been named the winner of the 2003 Women's Basketball Coaches Association's (WBCA) Mel Greenberg Media Award.

Named after Mel Greenberg, the Philadelphia Inquirer sportswriter who founded the Associated Press Top 25 women's basketball poll, the WBCA Media Award is presented annually to a member of the media who has best displayed a commitment to women's basketball and to advancing the role of the media in the women's game. Selected by past recipients of the award, the candidate must have had a positive impact on the growth and national or regional exposure of the sport, been involved in the media exposure of women's basketball for a minimum of five years, and should be a media ambassador for the women's game.

Voepel has established herself as one of the premiere journalists in the nation in reporting and representing women's basketball. In the year of 2002 alone she was responsible for approximately 150 women's basketball bylines in the KC Star.

------------------------------
This article continues, but my point is that this is a professional who is paid to express an opinion.

And what is her opinion . . .

"Yes, I know refereeing is a very hard job. I've never done it and would be terrible at it. But you know what? There are a lot of hard jobs. And in most of them, if you do something controversial or questionable, you're called upon to explain it. Maybe you have a very good explanation. Or maybe you don't, and it makes you look harder at your work.

Refs can't be expected to explain calls every game, of course. But this was a monumental situation. Explain the call, explain the decision-making. That's all. In this circumstance, that's not too much to ask."

"Now, does this mean that Tennessee didn't "deserve'' to win or wouldn't have won without the call? Of course not.

Here's the thing about Tennessee: It's a team that almost always puts itself in position to take advantage of any breaks it gets. But Tennessee shouldn't have gotten this particular break."

This is her opinion, shared by many. And I, for one, would like to see a means by which a call could be explained in a situation like this. Not necessarily that the res have a press conference, but that something come out and explain what occurred and why. So this "fanboy" agrees with the call but feels that it would be better if it were officially explained. And that "fangirl" reporter would also like an explanation, and she disagrees with the call as do many others.

I am not sure what needs to be explained. If you have seen the replay you can see the foul.

this would be my explanation though: The ball was stolen w/about 7 secs left (not sure exact time). Tenn had a fast break and the Baylor player was closely behind. I hustled down court to ge the best angle to make a call on the layin. Baylor took a swipe and missed. Tenn tried a tip in and missed. The Baylor player is OOB next to the lead. She then see the ball coming off and darts back inbounds for the rebound hitting the Tenn player and knocking her down.

I know that the time was running out but I have no idea if there is 2 sec or .2 on the clock as it was so quick. I saw a foul and I called it. I got together with my crew reviewed the tape and the foul occured before time expired. So we have no choice but to shoot the FT.

Tenn wins.

[Edited by smoref on Mar 30th, 2004 at 04:36 PM]

There's not much to explain, Coach. We all know the ref saw a foul and called it. No one says there wasn't a foul. The ref felt it was worth calling at this stage of the game. do we really need them to tell us this?

Exactly. Pat Summitt of Tennessee was quoted on ESPN today as saying - "If such a foul occurs in the first three minutes of a game, do you call it? Yes!". That tells you exactly the position that the official was in. If he calls the foul, all of the Baylor people are pissed off. If he doesn't call the foul, then the Tennessee people are pissed off. Can't win- just take the crap now no matter what you do, and then listen to the second-guessing for the rest of your career.

I think it's interesting that at least twice in the past few weeks, refs in the tourneys have been publicly criticized by their superiors for certain calls, but not in this case. That makes me think that whether you like the call or not, whether you agree with it or not, those that have the most authority thought it was good enough to keep quiet about.

Re: Ratto a hero
 

How do you strap the clubs to the back of your motorcycle? Don't the other golfers get angry at how much noise the motorcycle makes on the course? ;)

It's one of the new X sports, Chuck. Seriously. You don't get out much, do you?

Give him a chance! It's only just barely time to come out of hibernation....

Clear???
 

There's not much to explain with respect to this call, but there are three or four threads on the subject on a referee's board. Not to mention the media articles taking both sides of the issue.

OK, I'll buy that it is a non-controversial call unworthy of a quick explanation by the powers that be. It is obviously something that's stands on its own merit. How could I be foolish enough to suggest otherwise :(