Duke/Clemson timing error

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Let me look into my crystal ball, the call went in Duke's favor. Was I right?

At Duke? Shocked I am that you would say such a thing!

The call didn't go anybody's way. There was a timing error and the officials rectified the error as best they could within the framework of the rulebook.

Timing errors don't get officials suspended, going outside the confines of the rulebook to correct those errors is what gets them in trouble.

ps: FYI, I've always hated Duke

[Jimgolf]

Why didn't they check the monitor?

[rulesmaven]

Video plainly showed there were 4.4 seconds left on the clock when the ball completed its journey through the net. The clock kept running improperly.

I think it's crystal clear that the clock started late, and that was an error. So that seems fair game to me to criticize the fact that the clock wasn't started properly.

But it seems that what people are criticizing is not that but instead how the matter was corrected. I guess I haven't heard anyone suggest what else the crew could have lawfully done in that situation?

What makes the play a bit weird, though, is that earlier this year at Duke there was an error made in not starting the clock on an inbounds play, and the officials did appear to estimate the amount of time that the play took and then ran it off the clock. I think the opponent was V-Tech. There were about 17 seconds left, the ball was inbounded, but the clock didn't start, if I remember correctly. After a conference, they put 12 something on the clock. I don't know the ins and outs of the clock correction rules, obviously, but I guess at first blush I can see where the two situations appear a bit inconsistent.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

What makes the play a bit weird, though, is that earlier this year at Duke there was an error made in not starting the clock on an inbounds play, and the officials did appear to estimate the amount of time that the play took and then ran it off the clock. I think the opponent was V-Tech. There were about 17 seconds left, the ball was inbounded, but the clock didn't start, if I remember correctly. After a conference, they put 12 something on the clock. I don't know the ins and outs of the clock correction rules, obviously, but I guess at first blush I can see where the two situations appear a bit inconsistent.

In the VT/Duke game, if the ball was inbounded in the backcourt the officials could have used the 10-second count as definite knowledge.

In the Clemson/Duke game, there were no counts to utilize b/c Clemson gained control of the ball in its frontcourt.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the VT/Duke game, if the ball was inbounded in the backcourt the officials could have used the 10-second count as definite knowledge.

In the Clemson/Duke game, there were no counts to utilize b/c Clemson gained control of the ball in its frontcourt.

I'd have to see replay, but wasn't the problem in the v-tech game that the trailing official had mistakenly thought there had been a timeout called and had his back to the play as he moved toward the visiting bench?

I may be confusing two games though. I thought I remember watching the game live and looking to see whether there was someone counting in the backcourt, but it's hazy.

The other thing about that play was that some very uneven amount of time ultimately was taken off the clock -- like 5.4 seconds or 7.2 or something like that. If that's the case, do you really think that's how the play was called? Possible, but seems unlikely.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Why didn't they check the monitor?

They did. They put time back onto the clock as a result. You could argue that it was too much time.

Peace

[dblref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I was doing something when Sportcenter was talking about it, but there was no need for me to look.

Let me look into my crystal ball, the call went in Duke's favor. Was I right?

Of course it did, Duke was the better team. If you don't believe me, look at the score.

[dblref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I would never speak ill of Duke. Well, except maybe to say that their coach is a whiny little hemmorhoid. And... the Duke fans are pretty much the same also ......

Not all of us. I'm not little, no way, no how.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by dblref

Not all of us. I'm not little, no way, no how.

Sorry about that, you whiny big hemmorhoid, you....

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

I guess I haven't heard anyone suggest what else the crew could have lawfully done in that situation?

In a Pac-10 game last year, David Hall had the same thing happen (clock not starting) but the ball went out of bounds with 0.1 seconds left on the clock. Hall went to the table and they had a stopwatch there. He went to the monitor, reviewed the inbounds play at least 3 times, and timed it each. He determined that the play took longer than what was left on the clock and ruled the game over.

No controversy, nothing on the ESPN of a possible error, no suspension for the crew. I would think this would be the right way to handle it.

[Jurassic Referee]

The ACC admitted that there was a timing error in that the clock did not start properly. There were no other details given out re: whether the timing correction was handled properly or not.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2744216

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

In a Pac-10 game last year, David Hall had the same thing happen (clock not starting) but the ball went out of bounds with 0.1 seconds left on the clock. Hall went to the table and they had a stopwatch there. He went to the monitor, reviewed the inbounds play at least 3 times, and timed it each. He determined that the play took longer than what was left on the clock and ruled the game over.

No controversy, nothing on the ESPN of a possible error, no suspension for the crew. I would think this would be the right way to handle it.

Although I can't quote a particular game, it seems like I've seen a similar play. That is, failure of the clock to start, in which the officials have taken time off the clock, even in the front court, by estimating somehow.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In the VT/Duke game, if the ball was inbounded in the backcourt the officials could have used the 10-second count as definite knowledge.

In the Clemson/Duke game, there were no counts to utilize b/c Clemson gained control of the ball in its frontcourt.

I've seen people here on the forum recommend counting down the last 10 seconds of any period for just this reason. I have to admit that I'm not good at remembering to do it, but it sure seems like good advice in cases like this one.

[nakemiin]

I've read this thread (or at least most of it), and frankly while I think the discussion has been pertinent to the specific event, and that the comments for the most part of rationale and considered, I think we are missing the salient point.

The game was neither won nor lost on this single refereeing error -- but rather because of many events during the game. The game is not a 4.4 second game, but a 40 minute game. And thoroughout those 40 minutes numerous calls are made by the referees -- some good, some bad, some favoring one team, some favoring the other. In the Duke-Clemson game I saw at least 5 calls that were (in my opinion, but operating under an understanding of the rules) questionable at best, outright wrong at worst. One of the most egregious was a blocking foul on Duke, which resulted in a 3point play for Clemson. Re-looking at the tape of the game it was clearly a bad call -- giving Clemson 3 unwarranted points.

Where's the outrage over that call? Had it been called correctly the issue of the time at the end of the game would have been moot.

Unfortunately basketball is a fast game, referees are human, and some calls require split second judgment. Let's not dissect any single mistake by the officials, but rather emphasize the pattern of errors by specific individuals and then get them out of the game. But done blame Duke -- they played by the rules, lived with the vagaries of the refs and (this time) were fortunate to win.

...and in the end it's just a game -- and a great one at that, even with all its problems.

jbc

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by nakemiin

The game was neither won nor lost on this single refereeing error -- but rather because of many events during the game. The game is not a 4.4 second game, but a 40 minute game.

JBC, welcome to the forum. Glad you've joined us.

I don't think anybody here is trying to pin the outcome of the game on the officials. Nobody thinks that the refs cost Clemson the game. But we are trying to figure out the best way to handle this bad situation and what to do if something similar should ever happen to us.

Even if the officials had taken more time off the clock, Duke still might've scored by running a different play. The real question is what we are supposed to do when the clock doesn't start properly.