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

Video and report at this link.

http://www.gophersports.com/ViewArti...&ATCLID=747601

SDSU down one, inbounds, makes a layup right at the buzzer (this is at 2:20 of the five-minute video). Extremely close call as to whether she makes it.

Refs (John Morningstar and Ron Applegate and one other) go to the monitor, and waive it off (at 3:30 of the video). Then the SDSU coach complains and comes to the monitor with the refs. They review the video for another minute plus, and then count it.

On the local news, you could see that the backboard LED light came on a moment after the clock reached 0.0. The ball was still in shooter's hand at 0.0, but it was out of her hand by the time the LED light came on.

But under 7(2)(b), aren't they supposed to go by the clock if it's visible?

Basketball
NCAA
Rule 5: Scoring and Timing Regulations
Section 7: Beginning and End of Period - Article 2


Each period shall end when the red light or LED lights has become activated. When the light fails to operate or is not visible, each period shall end with the sounding of the game-clock horn.


a. In games when the red light is not present, the game-clock horn shall terminate players' activity.
b. In games with a tenth-of-a-second game clock display and where an official courtside monitor is used, the reading of 0.00 on the game clock is to be utilized to determine whether a try for goal occurred before or after the expiration of time in any period. When the game clock is not visible, the officials shall verify the original call with the use of the red / LED light(s). When the red / LED light(s) are not visible, the sounding of the game clock horn shall be utilized. When definitive information is unattainable with the use of the monitor, the original call stands.

It's not clear to me what they based either of their 2 decisions on. I'm not even sure she beat the clock or the LED.

Looked good to me.

I, personally, cannot believe he signalled "no basket" then went back and changed it. Should have been certain and stuck to his position. AND . . . why would he let the coach come over and look at the monitor with him?

Yeah, on the video at the link, you can't really see it. That's the video from the home team's scout camera.

The game was televised, so there were several other angles available. On the local news, they replayed it over and over. (Unfortunately, I can't find any of those videos available on the web.) It looked to me like the ball was pretty clearly still in her hand at the 0.0, but it was out of her hand by the time of the light. It was certainly a very close play. I'm not sure they got it wrong, but I was just wondering:

Based on the rule quoted by GoodwillRef above, they should have used the clock, not the light (assuming the clock was visible on the monitor). right?

It also seemed a little weird to change the call, but certainly it's better to get the call right, even if you have to change it. It also seemed a little weird to allow one coach to sit with you at the monitor and argue his point of view. I haven't seen something like that before. Again, if they got the call right, then maybe it doesn't matter, but it seemed unusual.

Morningstar called it the closest play he'd ever seen. I think I have to agree.

From that one angle and with no slo-mo, it looked good to me, but obviously it wasn't that easy. Great piece of video and thought-provoking.

So, with no video, if there's a light, we use the light to determine if the shot is good. If there's no light, then it's the horn.

With video, if we can see the clock, then the clock determines if it's good. If we can't see the clock, then the red light is used. If there's no light, then we listen for the horn on the tape.

Right?

I think that's right, but only if the clock that is shown is the "real" clock or is syncronized with the "real" clock. Sometimes (many times?) the clock on the screen is not official, so the light is used.

Bob makes a good point. During many of the past Final Fours, a clock in the lower corner of the screen may say 54.8, for instance, but the clock in the upper deck behind the hoop view may say 55.3, so they are not exactly synched up.

The question remains, though, why did all 3 officials allow the entire SDSU coaching staff to look over their shoulders during the review process? It is obvious that the crew allowed the SDSU coach to get them to change their call after reviewing video.

The rules state that coaches may not use video on the floor to aid in coaching. Perhaps they need to amend that rule to say that coaches also cannot use video on the floor to officiate!

There is also the fact that because of the call being overturned, it is obvious that the crew misinterpreted the rule somehow, at some point. I would not be surprised to see a one game suspension for all.

I concur. After he signaled no basket they should have walked off the court.

I agree that it is tough to make a ruling from the video shown...and I agree that the crew is probably in some hot water over this...no way in hell should they have let the SDSU coaches be there watching the video with them and pointing things out...THEN one official clearly signals no basket and in the pool reporter report one of the crew says "I'm not sure we ever did that"...then when the Minnesota coach comes over and starts questioning what's going on, the woman official is clearly seen giving that coach the back-off movement with the arms and MN coach points at SDSU coach and THAT'S when they finally make that coach move away from them...wow.

At this point, as far as them being in trouble - it doesn't really matter if they got the call right...they messed up the review process quite badly and that's what they should be reprimanded for...

excert from article from the StarTribune
 

"The officials determined from replays and the rule book that the basket counted because the ball left Boever's hand before the backboard LED lights glowed red, even if it appeared to still be in her hand when the scoreboard clock read 0.0 an instant before.

"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."

Big Ten women's basketball coordinator of officials Patty Broderick requested a copy of the tape and she will investigate to determine whether the rule book was followed correctly. The officials applied one part of Rule 5, Section 7, but apparently did not consider a provision that states the scoreboard clock is the determining factor in games when there is a clock that measures tenths of a second and a courtside monitor is available.

"We want to make sure we absolutely get it right," Broderick said, acknowledging the game's outcome won't change either way but suggesting disciplinary action if the officials erred."

Did you mean to say "giving the coach the stop sign"?

No, it looks more like the "coach, please don't come any closer, because I think we are about to REALLY screw this up, and we don't want anyone within ear shot to hear us while we come up with a REALLY LAME excuse for not disallowing the goal and walking off the court," sign. :D

That's the double stop sign.

The crew didn't help themselves when he waved off the points and then looked again at the replay. You think they delayed their decision long enough for security to arrive and escort them off the court? Nah! What if she misses the shot but gets fouled on the play? The foul came after the horn/light?

If she is fouled on the play before time expires then the player is awarded 2 free throws. If it's after time expires then it is ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant.

I think this crew did not do a very good job at handling the replay. Letting a coach influence a decision after a ruling had been made looks really BAD.

some more video is available here. This is from the TV telecast, not the scout cam, so you can see the clock and shot a little more clearly.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S21263.html?cat=1

Thanks for the new clip. Pretty easy to see from there that the ball was still in her hand at :00.0. Tough position for the refs. Looks like they went by the LED lights, instead of the clock above the backboard. So why weren't the lights sync'ed-up with the clock? :mad:

I don't get that either. Apparently there is some lag time. The clock goes to 0.0, and it sends a signal to the horn and light, but sending that signal takes a split second.

In fact, that's why they changed the rule in 2004 to go by the clock rather than the light.

http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/story/7319659

Which replays did the refs use on the floor? Did they access to the same view as the last clip? Or did they have some view that may not have shown the clock? I've always wondered what replays are actually available tableside in a situation like this, and who controls what is able to be viewed.

At least the MN coach said the right things in the article: "It wasn't so much a last-second play," said Borton. "It was the 16 turnovers in the first half, it was shooting 48 percent from the free-throw line. It was all those other things."

It is the perception of the situation - even if you read what is being said here - that the final decision was influenced by the coach after they made their decision by reviewing the monitor.
I will presume they got the call right and that is important.
But in this case one official should have been moving the coach's away from the monitor - So that if they decide to step back and look at another angle - or review it again after talking to both coaches then it is their decision - not that of a coach pointing a the monitor saying "SEE SEE Your Wrong!". then going back and changing the call.

that's a good question. I've seen three angles:

(1) the MN scout cam, from high center court. From this angle, you just can't tell.
(2) the sideline cam from the TV feed, where you can see the light, but only part of the clock. From this angle, it looks like she beat the light, but you can't see the clock.
(3) the far baseline angle from the TV feed, where you can see both. From this angle, you can see the ball in her hand at 0.0, but it looks like it's out by the time the light comes on.

I don't know which they had. Regardless, from postgame quotes in the original link posted, it sounds like Morningstar relied on the LED light rather than the clock.

A couple things:

1) I'm surprised no one here has discussed all three officials with their backs turned to the players and court. That's the thing that jumped out at me...even though the game was over, the officials still have jurisdiction...and a lot of things could have happened with no officials' "eyes on path".

2) So that's where Rod Simmons went (the reporter for the Ch. 5 MN news) He used to be a local boy here in Eastern Washington...then moved on to the Seattle area.

Where should the throw-in be?
 

Assume this game is played under high school rules. The throw-in with 3.5 seconds from the end-line is deflected out-of-bounds at the division line by the defense. Are we really going to give the ball back to the offense at the original throw-in spot -- with one second having run off the clock?

We had a long chat about this play a few weeks back: http://forum.officiating.com/showthr...ighlight=throw

Was the defense standing OOB, or did she knock the ball OOB?
If she was standing OOB, then do the throw in at the original spot with the original time on the clock. Time should not have run off. If she was standing inbounds but knocked it out, then new spot and time.

Not me...divsion line throw-in by the original throw-in team.

That is for a ball contacted by a player that is OOB, not a ball knocked out by a player inbounds...big difference.;)

Oops...you are right. The defender is inbounds and knocks the pass OOB. Different scenario.

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.

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, <B>no</B> 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.

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.

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.

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?

Ruling came down.

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

Error acknowledged, refs disciplined in some undisclosed fashion.

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.

The benefit of the doubt. :confused:

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

The coach says, "No, look again."

"Okay."

"Yeah, you're right."

Gimme a break.

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.

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.

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.”


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

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.

Another funny thing is that...the clock and shot clock are from Daktronics from Brookings SD where SDSU is at :)

I watched the game being from MN, if the refs only had the side angle and not the replay from under the basket on the other end they would not be able to see the shot clock, game clock.

just my two cents

Oh, yea?!?

Well...so?!?

:p

Like my reply to Tony - I was giving them the benefit of the doubt because of their position. They are there because they get things right more often than not.

In this case, they didn't get it right. I sure hope I get it right if I'm ever in that position.

Here is a much better view and link of this shot.

News footage and better angle of shot

Peace

Thanks for the effort, but someone posted that video two days ago. See post #19 in the thread. :p

A good review of the play, the rule, what happened and what should have happened in on eofficials, NCAAW, Video Bulletins 7A and 7B (1/23 and 1/24, respectively)

Thank you for calling attention to those, Bob. They are excellent. Is there any way to save those video bulletins to our personal computers?