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 :(

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.

This is a great point!

It's not reasonable posts like this that we want to get rid of. We need more of you.

Yeah! What Juulie said...and the Yankees suck. There, I feel better now...

Where on earth did you get that understanding? Anything to do with the clock is relevant.

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.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such sheer,unrestrained hostility. It's hardly becoming of a gentlemen of your stature.

Speaking of stature, I caught you and Chuck in that movie that you did together. Three thumbs up!

http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/img/13_ml.gif

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.

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.

ROFLMAO!!!!!! But the Mariners still have a better record than the Yankees!!! (For now, anyway) And as for the Judge (reminds me of the old Flip Wilson bit), what a rousing way to enter the forum group...but try to lay off the booze so early in the day - you're slurring your typing!!

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 let’s give the benefit of a doubt) say it was to determine if the whistle was blown during the game.

It is only the NCAA’s 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 NCAA’s Rules. Protocol as a part of Appendix III of basketball’s 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, NCAA’s protocol for women’s 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 NCAA’s 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 Baylor’s 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 NCAA’s 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

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.

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?

Section 6 - #2 - "To prevent or rectify a game-clock mistake."

Right there, in the book, plain as day.

They often do - if the mistake is large enough to be noticed. If the whistle is blown at 13:32.9, but the clock stops at 13:32.6, there's no way of knowing because the clock doesn't show tenths of a second at that point.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

ok I give up, just suffice to say the call should not have been whistled, and any referee who thinks it should have well that is part of the problem.

Aw no, don't leave yet, Judge. Did those bad ol' referees and coaches really try to confuse you by quoting all those nasty rules to you, instead of using newspapers? They're meanies, aren't they? Please stick around. You don't know how much you really brighten up a rainy day. You made me laugh, anyway. Please don't go. What can we do to make you stay? I know- we'll declare Baylor the national champion of the whole world. And then we'll have those nasty officials shot! Horse-whipping is too good for 'em, I tell ya!

And another dipsh*t exits, stage left.

We missed a chance at a huge upset this year, when trailing by 2 with 25 seconds left, we were called for an illegal screen. I was a lot more upset about the fact that the official thought it was a foul (he used the word "borderline" in a discussion we had after the game) than I was about the time remaining. But, could you tell me, should the officials be passing on calls with 25 seconds left? What about 11 seconds? How about 4.7 seconds? Maybe 1.6? Or just 0.2? I need to know if this guy that worked our game is part of the problem--my official rating sheet is due next week!

We missed a chance at a huge upset this year, when trailing by 2 with 25 seconds left, we were called for an illegal screen. I was a lot more upset about the fact that the official thought it was a foul (he used the word "borderline" in a discussion we had after the game) than I was about the time remaining.

[/B][/QUOTE]If that "borderline" illegal screen call wasn't called consistently the whole game, then you probably had the right to squawk a little. That's what fans don't understand. There's a big difference between calling something (like contact) consistently the whole game, and calling something at the end of the game that they may have been letting go all game. Big, big difference.

I have been reading this thread with much interest but have refrained from comment as I did not see the play in question. You however have asked for an opinion that I just happen to have.

My intentions are to call the same game for 40 minutes. What is a foul at .2 seconds into the game, is a foul with .2 seconds remaining. I do not base ALL my calls on Advantage vs. Disadvantage as I feel there are fouls and violations that put no one at a disadvantage but should be called to maintain the integrity of the game and to keep many games from possibly slipping out of control. This is not to say that I do not agree with the Advantage vs. Disadvantage procedure, I just do not feel that it is an "all inclusive" process.

As for the "late in the game" calls. Whomever decided that officials should pass on calls late in the game has done the profession an injustice. IMHO, if you pass on a call just because of the time remaining or the score of the contest, you have jeopardized your integrity. I am not talking about 10 year old rec. ball, but HS and NCAA. As an official, I want to follow the rules; that covers my a$$ if something happens or if someone gets hurt.

Pat Summit, like many class act coaches, would rather not win a game on a controversial call with .2 seconds remaining in a tie game. But had she been down by one and the officials decided to "pass" on the call because it was "late in the game"; what would your reply be to her when she asks "why you did not call the foul?"
"Uhhh, well coach, you see, we as officials just pass on calls when there is less than .3 seconds left because you can't attempt a try!"

I hope you enjoyed your final game in the big leagues ref!



[Edited by N_Stripes on Apr 1st, 2004 at 08:39 AM]

[QUOTE]
As for the "late in the game" calls. Whomever decided that officials should pass on calls late in the game has done the profession an injustice. IMHO, if you pass on a call just because of the time remaining or the score of the contest, you have jeopardized your integrity. I am not talking about 10 year old rec. ball, but HS and NCAA. As an official, I want to follow the rules; that covers my a$$ if something happens or if someone gets hurt.
QUOTE]

I have never heard anyone suggust to pass on calls late in the close game. I have heard, and support the idea of communicating as partners the game situation, stay focused, be in good position to see the whole play. Lets make sure its a good call or no call.

The difference is game management. I try not to call borderline fouls. Early or late I want to be able to say to myself, "yep, thats a foul", beep. Having said that, there are times I may call a borderline foul early in the game, depending on the situation. I'm not going to call a borderling foul late in close game.

ok I woul dnot have called the foul becase it was a borderline foul and yes you better be dammn sure you have a for sure foul if youy are going to call it that will put a team on the line with no time left.

I am not a ref, have no reason to defend them. I am not a Tennessee fan, no reason to want a call to go their way. I do not think it was borderline. I do think it could have been passed on if the ref knew the exact time, which he really wouldn't when he is reffing the game - he would only know that it was close to over. So to suggest the ref was so unbelievably wrong is itself unbelievably wrong, especially if you are really a ref yourself. The ref made a call that some support, and some disagree with - but the ref was not so ar over the line as you would have it.

a confession
 

I personally have been guilty of not making calls because
"it's just about over." But this was at the end of jr. high
games with large point differentials. Even in these cases
when you start not calling things invariably there is more time left than you thought. When this happens you let another thing go because you let the first thing go and, by golly, those last 3 or 4 seconds can become an eternity.
With this in mind is it not evident that a "no whistle right at the buzzer" philosophy is unacceptable in any close game, let alone in a game of this magnitude? I say that if this collision goes without a call and it turns out to be at the 00:01.2 mark rather than at the 00:00.2 mark we would have heard an equal or even greater reaction from the Tennessee side.

justanotherref, after having seen the play, I have finally concluded that judge is nothing but a Texas-boy Baylor fan. I'm sure it's just a conspiracy of liberal refs and NCAA brass to get back at the state of Texas for giving us our illustrious president.

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Don't take it out on the Yankees because your Mariners are so bad. Remember, there is room for you on the Yankee bandwagon. There is even a 12-step program available to help you get over your feeling of inadequacy for supporting the Mariners.

Please cite the NCAA rule that would allow them to go to the monitor to determine IF the foul occurred before time expired (not to be confused with how much time should be on the clock after the ball became dead).