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 NCAAÂ’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 officialsÂ’ and the NCAAÂ’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 BaylorÂ’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 NCAAÂ’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

So how many of those newspapers you are quoting had people right there listening to the three officials as they reviewed the play on the monitor??? Question: How in the world do those newspapers know WHY the officials went to the monitor?? Answer: THEY DON"T!!! They are writing the same things the idiot announcers were saying,,,the officials went to the monitor because that's what the rule book says to do - try reading NCAA rule 2-5.2 b and d...then take your little plastic gavel and shove it where the....nope, nope, can't do it people.I just can't do it...but the Yankees still suck! Whew, now I feel better again. :)

Like the Judge, I can copy from another thread. I am not sure which copy of the rules and procedures he has, but these are from the on-line, 2004 version.

Appendix III
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.

Ignorance seems to be a favorite food.
 

"The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet." - <I>Earl of Chesterfield, 1746</I>

:rolleyes:
mick

"The knowledge of the world is only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet." - Earl of Chesterfield, 1746

That's why classrooms are never in the closets, only the janitor's brooms and mops.

Oooooooo, Rocky's going troll hunting. LOL. Leave the judge alone, Rock. Do you realize how much effort he put into his 12,00 word diatribe? HE READ NEWSPAPERS!!! Besides, how often can you actually see oxygen being wasted like that? And he was an official for 24 years too! Refereed nigh on 2 1/2 games too! And he's got this great deal on some land for ya down in Florida..........

Btw, you trying to sneak the Yankee stuff into every post now? Not wise, my friend. We know where you live. Retribution will be swift and merciless!

No, not every post...just hoping to get another picture like the last one you put up. Laughed so hard I had Pepsi come out my nose...

Pepsi? If you hadda used Coke, you coulda cleaned your whistle while you were laughing.

-think about that one, Juulie.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative3.jpg


When the whistle sounded has absolutely nothing to do with the play. If the foul occurred prior to the horn sounded, and it did, then it's a foul. The whistle coming before or after the horn is of no consequence. The only reason they went to the table was to determine how much time should be put back on the clock.

Re: Ignorance seems to be a favorite food.
 

Nice one.

Here's one of my favorites:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Kinda applies here, no?

Yeah but can you XXXX a bottle with lightening in it?

:p

misspelled lightning. :rolleyes:

[Edited by mick on Mar 31st, 2004 at 09:15 PM]

Yeah but can you XXXX bottle with lightening in it?

:p [/B][/QUOTE]

He doesn't look like he could **** much of anything! ;)

Geez.

[Edited by mick on Mar 31st, 2004 at 09:16 PM]

He doesn't look like he could **** much of anything!


[/B][/QUOTE]I honestly don't remember posing for that. :confused:

Well I'll be XXXXed...

I honestly don't remember posing for that. :confused:

[/B][/QUOTE]

So..you the guy in the front or the back?