Wild ending -- video review -- MN-SDSU women

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

"The lights are the determining factor," said official John Morningstar, removing a rule book from his bag. "It was the closest play I've ever seen."

Perhaps now he will actually open the book and read it instead of just keeping it in his bag.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps now he will actually open the book and read it instead of just keeping it in his bag.

The point of my question earlier about what replay was shown was to find out if he was right. You or I cannot say that he is or is not correct, because we do not know which angle they looked at in the replay.

In games without a courtside monitor, the lights are the first indicator of the end of the period. In this case, with a courtside monitor available, if they cannot see the clock in the monitor, the lights are also used to signal the end of the game. In womens_hoops' post, (s)he mentioned in two of the three angles they could not view the clock. So, it is entirely possible John was correct in his statement, if the view they had in the monitor did not show the clock.

My point is - don't be too quick in putting him down for his statement, because he could very well be correct. Given his officiating resume, and the number of televised games he's done, I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

The point of my question earlier about what replay was shown was to find out if he was right. You or I cannot say that he is or is not correct, because we do not know which angle they looked at in the replay.

In games without a courtside monitor, the lights are the first indicator of the end of the period. In this case, with a courtside monitor available, if they cannot see the clock in the monitor, the lights are also used to signal the end of the game. In womens_hoops' post, (s)he mentioned in two of the three angles they could not view the clock. So, it is entirely possible John was correct in his statement, if the view they had in the monitor did not show the clock.

My point is - don't be too quick in putting him down for his statement, because he could very well be correct. Given his officiating resume, and the number of televised games he's done, I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And I would agree with you on that point, Jim...but hopefully you will agree with me (and others) who have said that the crew botched things by allowing the SDSU coach to kneel there with them and point things out to them, only to shoo away the MN coach when she came over...and also I would hope you would agree that the crew botched it when the official stood up and clearly signalled no basket, only to go back and watch some more and then count the basket and claim in the postgame report that they never signalled no basket...

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

And I would agree with you on that point, Jim...but hopefully you will agree with me (and others) who have said that the crew botched things by allowing the SDSU coach to kneel there with them and point things out to them, only to shoo away the MN coach when she came over...and also I would hope you would agree that the crew botched it when the official stood up and clearly signalled no basket, only to go back and watch some more and then count the basket and claim in the postgame report that they never signalled no basket...

Yep, I agree those parts looked bad. I guess I wasn't aware of the procedure of one of the officials going to both coaches and keeping the teams at their benches until a final determination is made; I found that out when I went to the book to check on the monitor guidelines. (I can count on one hand - ok, no hands - the number of times I've done a televised game with a courtside monitor.) So it looks like the one official is starting to shoo away coaches, but only after the one was already in there giving helpful advice. And as for the post-game claim, well, the tape doesn't lie, does it? It's even worse when the tape is available to more than just your supervisor.

Now, I wonder how many times D-1 officials get to go to the monitor over the course of the season? One thing I did notice, as soon as they counted the basket, they got together and went right to the table. I would probably have to be dragged back out of the locker room...

Anyway, I was just commenting on Nevada's "reading the rulebook" comments.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Anyway, I was just commenting on Nevada's "reading the rulebook" comments.

I come off as rather harsh, but I expect an experienced D1 referee to get this right.
I will give you that he may not have had the angle the TV news showed, but I still happen to believe that he also had an incorrect understanding of the rule.

I'll have to speak to some friends who work D1 and see how many of their courtside monitors don't have a game clock superimposed on the screen. I'm having a hard time believing that the courtside monitor would lack clock info.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I come off as rather harsh, but I expect an experienced D1 referee to get this right.
I will give you that he may not have had the angle the TV news showed, but I still happen to believe that he also had an incorrect understanding of the rule.

I'll have to speak to some friends who work D1 and see how many of their courtside monitors don't have a game clock superimposed on the screen. I'm having a hard time believing that the courtside monitor would lack clock info.

Even if there is a clock super-imposed, it still has to be synched up with the game clock somehow.

Given his experience, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Who was he speaking to when he made his comment about the lights? Was he talking to another official, who would understand the differences between lights, clock showing 0.00, horn, and the proper order, or was he talking to a member of the press? How many times have you tried to explain the travel rule to the "common folk", only to see their eyes glaze over when you start talking about lifting and/or replacing a pivot foot? You might keep the explanation a little easier; this might be what John did in this case.

How many, really close, last-second-in-the-game-situations like this do we have in a season? It's easy for us to watch this after the fact, look it up (like I did), and notice the subtle difference between lights vs. clock in this situation. In most cases, he would be right in saying the light was the deciding factor. But this was one of those rare instances where it might not have been. And I don't care how experienced you are, there's always some situation, like this, that we haven't seen before and we aren't as prepared as we should be. If that's the case here, you can bet he won't get it wrong the next time.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'll have to speak to some friends who work D1 and see how many of their courtside monitors don't have a game clock superimposed on the screen. I'm having a hard time believing that the courtside monitor would lack clock info.

Almost all games using TV will have a clock superimposed onto the screen during the end of the game. The issue is whether or not the clock being displayed is the actual game clock and the previously mentioned "electronic clock" (one that is controlled by someone other than the official time keeper).

Some of you may recall the Missouri State @ St. Louis Univ. game (12/18). That game had a Mo. St. player tipping in a rebound at or near the expiration of time. The C initially waved the basket off (after watching the TiVo replay approx. 20 times - the horn sounded when the clock on the screen showed 0:00.2 with the ball still in the shooters hand). IMHO the initial call was correct because the horn sounded prior to release. The officials checked the monitor and saw the ball released prior to 0:00.0. The problem was that the clock displayed on the monitor was not the actual game clock (and thereby not accurately sync'd up).

I had a local TV game this past Sat. and I made sure to find a producer who assured me the actual game clock would be displayed on the replay if we needed to use the monitor. If it was an "electronic clock", we would have been in trouble because the baskets did not have a red LED light behind the backboard or around it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

How many, really close, last-second-in-the-game-situations like this do we have in a season? It's easy for us to watch this after the fact, look it up (like I did), and notice the subtle difference between lights vs. clock in this situation. In most cases, he would be right in saying the light was the deciding factor. But this was one of those rare instances where it might not have been. And I don't care how experienced you are, there's always some situation, like this, that we haven't seen before and we aren't as prepared as we should be. If that's the case here, you can bet he won't get it wrong the next time.

The issue isn't how often this comes up, but rather speaks to the preparation level of those involved.

When this exact situation happened to some of his fellow officials just a couple of years ago and the NCAA went out of its way to set the priority when using the monitor, I would think that an experienced official would take notice of it and make darn sure that he knows the rule for using a courtside monitor.

Is it really that hard to commit to memory that if we have a last second try for goal and have to go to the monitor, we need to look for a, b, and c, in that order?

[womens_hoops]

Ruling came down.

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArti...&ATCLID=748869

Error acknowledged, refs disciplined in some undisclosed fashion.

[Scrapper1]

Broderick would not expand on the corrective action taken against the crew that worked the game. The WBOC’s corrective action procedures and policies without limitation could include: verbal or written censure; placement on probationary status; reduction, restriction, or cancellation of assignments or suspension or any revocation of the officials’ status with the conference.

“All I can tell you is that the officials have been disciplined,” added Broderick. “In my opinion the penalty suits the misapplication of the rule.”

Thank you Ms. Broderick. Yes, the officials probably should be disciplined for misapplying the rule. But thank you for not announcing the punishment in the media and flogging them in public. I hate to see conferences announce the suspension of a crew or whatever. Whose business is it what the penalty was? I think this was handled very well, for whatever my opinion is worth.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Given his experience, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The benefit of the doubt.

He reviewed the play, stood and waved the basket off.

The coach says, "No, look again."

"Okay."

"Yeah, you're right."

Gimme a break.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by womens_hoops

Ruling came down.

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArti...&ATCLID=748869

Error acknowledged, refs disciplined in some undisclosed fashion.

Okay, will someone please explain this to me.

When officiating the play, the lights are the determining factor on whether a shot counts or not.

When reviewing the play, the clock is the determining factor is it is an official clock.

To me, that's two different standards and makes NO sense whatsoever.

[womens_hoops]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Yes, the officials probably should be disciplined for misapplying the rule. But thank you for not announcing the punishment in the media and flogging them in public.

agreed. I don't think Minnesota was after any sort of public flogging anyway. Minnesota will probably end up on the bubble this year for the tournament. What they are worried about is that this loss will keep them out. So they just wanted some sort of acknowledgment of a mistake so the Selection Committee would have that in mind when making its decision.

Personally, even as a Minnesota fan, I don't really think the Selection Committee should treat this game differently from any other game. In that sense, I think our appeal was a little silly. But regardless, it's good to clarify the rule, confusing as it is.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

My point is - don't be too quick in putting him down for his statement, because he could very well be correct. Given his officiating resume, and the number of televised games he's done, I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hey M&M,
http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArti...&ATCLID=748869

The Women’s Basketball Officiating Consortium has acknowledged a misapplication of a rule that incorrectly counted a last-second basket giving South Dakota State a 59-58 victory over Minnesota on Sunday, Jan. 14.
...
“That was the ruling that we misapplied,” said Patty Broderick, the Coordinator of Officials for the WBOC. “With 00.0 on the game clock, the ball is absolutely in the South Dakota State player’s hand and that is what determines whether a shot is good or not good in regards to reviewing a play at the end of a game on a monitor.”
...
“When the officials leave the court, they have approved the score. But, the NCAA is aware the officials misapplied a rule and there is corrective action being taken against them. They are being disciplined for misapplying the rule.”
...
“All I can tell you is that the officials have been disciplined,” added Broderick. “In my opinion the penalty suits the misapplication of the rule.”



I stand by my original criticism. He got the rule wrong.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The benefit of the doubt.

He reviewed the play, stood and waved the basket off.

The coach says, "No, look again."

"Okay."

"Yeah, you're right."

Gimme a break.

Oh, I agree - that part doesn't look good at all.

Because of his experience, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on:
1) Knowing the proper procedure.
2) Applying it properly given the information that was available on the monitor.

Given what's been posted, the officials didn't get the procedure correct. And that's been shown by the fact they have been reprimanded to some extent. I was only giving them the benefit of the doubt because they are the best at what they do; no different than any other D-1 or NBA ref. That doesn't mean they're infallible; they screw up like we do, only probably less often.