Duke/Clemson timing error

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by mjbofficial

Clemson got hosed. There was plenty of time for all of the appropriate parties to put a fair amount of time back on, but 4.4 seconds was obviously too much.

No more hosed than Duke, who were charged with a "blocking" foul on a drive to the basket - resulting in a 3 point play. In fact, it was a charge by Clemson.

The game must be viewed in its entirety -- not just one call.

[nakemiin]

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!

This is precisely the type of in-depth, thoughtful analysis that in the end demeans the integrity of the ACC referees and officials.

It sounds good to Duke-haters, but is patently untrue. If there is bias among officials one could equally argue that they are anti-Duke because of their success over the years. ...or anti-UNC for that matter. Come on, be reasonable.

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

This is precisely the point one of the Sports Center commentators made -- you are absolutely right.

Here's a thought -- but don't laugh please.

It seems to me that it would feasible, at least for portions of the game, to have the timing started and stopped automatically. I haven't thought this through entirely but here goes.

Instrument the ball with an identification device, the basket with a "reader", and the end and sidelines with "readers" -- so that when the ball goes through the hoop the clock stops, when it is tossed in across the end line it starts - automatically. When it goes out on the sidelines it similarly stops, and starts automatically when inbounded. Referees would have a device (with whistle?) to stop the clock during penalties, timeouts, etc. You could have a redundant manual system at the scorers table, and when there is a discrepancy between the automatic and manual system of some specified amount (1/2 sec, 1 sec, e.g.) it would trigger a review at that very moment.

Given the capability we have to monitor tennis matches (challenge system electronics) and football (yellow, blue, red lines) this is certainly technically possible. I'm sure I haven't thought about everything, but who knows it might be doable.

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

BadNewsRef --

It's refreshing when someone admits their bias or prejudice. Honesty is best policy -- and while I disagree with you I applaud your candor.l

[tomegun]

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

You are 100% right, but a team cannot recover from a (officiating) mistake at the end of a game. Hopefully, that is part of your pre-game.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by nakemiin

This is precisely the point one of the Sports Center commentators made -- you are absolutely right.

Here's a thought -- but don't laugh please.

It seems to me that it would feasible, at least for portions of the game, to have the timing started and stopped automatically. I haven't thought this through entirely but here goes.

Instrument the ball with an identification device, the basket with a "reader", and the end and sidelines with "readers" -- so that when the ball goes through the hoop the clock stops, when it is tossed in across the end line it starts - automatically. When it goes out on the sidelines it similarly stops, and starts automatically when inbounded. Referees would have a device (with whistle?) to stop the clock during penalties, timeouts, etc. You could have a redundant manual system at the scorers table, and when there is a discrepancy between the automatic and manual system of some specified amount (1/2 sec, 1 sec, e.g.) it would trigger a review at that very moment.

Given the capability we have to monitor tennis matches (challenge system electronics) and football (yellow, blue, red lines) this is certainly technically possible. I'm sure I haven't thought about everything, but who knows it might be doable.

I like the progressive thinking, there are problems with the logic. There are many times when the ball could be outside the vertical field of the endline and sidelines, but isn't out of bounds. One of the big stinks (the Clemson coach has moved on) is the fact that with three precision timing devices, someone at the table and use of the monitor this just shouldn't happen.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by nakemiin

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.

You're not an official, are you?

You want to get specific referees completely out of the game because they blow a call or two? That's it? You missed a judgement call or two and now you're fired? Helluva idea. Something tells me that you're the one that's going to determine what those blown calls were too, and the blown calls will be the ones that went against poor ol' Duke- just like the blocking foul that you're whining about above.

Lah me, another Dookie fanboy shows up. Get the Preparation H......

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by tomegun

You are 100% right, but a team cannot recover from a (officiating) mistake at the end of a game. Hopefully, that is part of your pre-game.

I understand your point, but I am not sure I agree. The issue is not when an error occurs but what is the outcome. An error leading to 3 points in the first minute of the game, has the same effect as one at the at end of the game (if you lose by 3 points or less). The premise of "recovering" from an error is appealing, but probably not germane -- because a wrong call sometimes has a compounding effect on the wronged team. They are frustrated, may try too hard to make it up. It might aggravate a point drought, etc.

In the end I guess we just have to learn to accept that (to quote Bill Gates) "Life is not fair, get used to it."

I have for years been frustrated at the quality of officiating -- especially in basketball -- but I'm learning to "let it go" so as not to let it detract from the enjoyment of the game.

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're not an official, are you?

You want to get specific referees completely out of the game because they blow a call or two? That's it? You missed a judgement call or two and now you're fired? Helluva idea. Something tells me that you're the one that's going to determine what those blown calls were too, and the blown calls will be the ones that went against poor ol' Duke- just like the blocking foul that you're whining about above.

Lah me, another Dookie fanboy shows up. Get the Preparation H......

Jurassic --

First, that is not a very classy or even appropriate response. It is intentionally inflamatory -- but won't work.

Second, no I am not a basketball referee, though I have ref'd soccer.

Third, no one is advocating canning a ref for one or two calls -- if you would get off your high horse and read what I said was that they should be removed if there is a pattern of poor calls. Read "pattern" -- that implies a longer time, over multiple games, perhaps over several seasons. Seems as though you are being a bit sensitive over this.

Fourth, I'm no dukie -- I root for Dayton and Michigan State if that is even relevant. But I did watch the game with friends, some of whom were Clemson fans -- and THEY were the ones that were laughing about having gotten away with the charge. I simply was using that as an example -- and wasn't whining.

Appears though you are one of the legion of Duke haters though. If so, then rejoice because their team is more erratic this year than in years past, and UNC is likely to cream them in both meetings. But get over it -- it's just a game ultimately.

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I like the progressive thinking, there are problems with the logic. There are many times when the ball could be outside the vertical field of the endline and sidelines, but isn't out of bounds. One of the big stinks (the Clemson coach has moved on) is the fact that with three precision timing devices, someone at the table and use of the monitor this just shouldn't happen.

Yup -- you are right -- for example when a ball goes over the end line but is still in play until it is touched by a player or hits the ground. Easy solution -- just change the rules of the game to indicate that the ball is dead when it crosses the line. It would eliminate the flying leaps to try and save the ball -- and the injuries that come of it (crashing into benches, tables, fans, the floor).

Anyway -- I think that some creative people could figure out how to leverage technology to improve this -- I'm certainly not saying my quick note is complete.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by nakemiin

Jurassic --
First, that is not a very classy or even appropriate response.

Second, no I am not a basketball referee, though I have ref'd soccer.

Third--if you would get off your high horse and read what I said was that they should be removed if there is a pattern of poor calls. Read "pattern" -- that implies a longer time, over multiple games, perhaps over several seasons. Seems as though you are being a bit sensitive over this.

Fourth, I'm no dukie -- I root for Dayton and Michigan State if that is even relevant.

First- I'm wounded to the quick, Sir. I have always been noted for my class, savoir faire and even, if I may say so myself, a slight touch of natural elan.

Second-- So....if you're not a basketball referee, exactly what are you qualifications when it comes to determining whether a bad call was made or not? Countless hours of watching games and listening to the announcers?

Third- Again, if you are not a basketball official, exactly what are your qualifications that will allow you to determine that a basketball official should be removed from his avocation/vocation? And yes, I certainly am kind of sensitive when ignorant fanboys advocate firing officials when they've never officiated a basketball game in their lives and also don't know or understand the rules, mechanics and philosophies used.

Fourth- You might not be a Dookie fanboy but there's really no difference when it comes to your genus. You're just another typical fanboy wandering through. You've never officiated a basketball game in your life. That don't matter though. Instead of asking if a bad call was made in the game, you tell us that a bad call was made. Typical fanboy crap iow.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by nakemiin

I have for years been frustrated at the quality of officiating -- especially in basketball -- but I'm learning to "let it go" so as not to let it detract from the enjoyment of the game.

We've also learned not to take people like you seriously too.

Please don't take that personal. It's just a fact of life amongst us terrible ol' officials. Fanboys whine. We ignore them. Except when they come on our forum.

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

First- I'm wounded to the quick, Sir. I have always been noted for my class, savoir faire and even, if I may say so myself, a slight touch of natural elan.

Second-- So....if you're not a basketball referee, exactly what are you qualifications when it comes to determining whether a bad call was made or not? Countless hours of watching games and listening to the announcers?

Third- Again, if you are not a basketball official, exactly what are your qualifications that will allow you to determine that a basketball official should be removed from his avocation/vocation? And yes, I certainly am kind of sensitive when ignorant fanboys advocate firing officials when they've never officiated a basketball game in their lives and also don't know or understand the rules, mechanics and philosophies used.

Fourth- You might not be a Dookie fanboy but there's really no difference when it comes to your genus. You're just another typical fanboy wandering through. You've never officiated a basketball game in your life. That don't matter though. Instead of asking if a bad call was made in the game, you tell us that a bad call was made. Typical fanboy crap iow.

Your savoir faire and elan are certainly displayed in your response -- or lack thereof. Self promotion does not make it so. Enough said on that.

While not an official referee I have not only watched countless games, played in games, and (more importantly) studied the official rules (including the changes from year to year). My qualifications -- probably none by your implied standards, other than a love of the game, a thorough understanding of the game, indepth understanding of the rules. Based on your definition no one who has not officiated in a specific sport has any right to question any on floor ruling. What nonsense. How many coaches have officiated games? Are you implying they have no right to ever question a call on that basis alone. Give me a break -- your logic collapses entirely.

Hmmm...regarding the removal of officials? Seems you are a bit sensitive on this...have you been removed? First, I never advocated or suggested that I held the authority to remove them. What I DID say was that if there is a pattern of poor performance, wrong calls (flagrant), then they should be removed. What part of this simple statement do you not understand? If someone make frequent mistakes why shouldn't the profession remove them? Based on your standards, no official would ever be removed. Other professions that require judgment -- police officials, doctors, judges, etc. -- have procedures for removal of poor performers.

Your final comments certainly belie your clam of "elan" and "savoir faire".
In the end "methinks he protesteth too much". Seems to me that you are defending even most egregious error by an official -- without providing any objectivity. But why am I surprised?

[nakemiin]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We've also learned not to take people like you seriously too.

Please don't take that personal. It's just a fact of life amongst us terrible ol' officials. Fanboys whine. We ignore them. Except when they come on our forum.

Oh, I don't take it personally -- I recognize the arguments you present and recognize them for what they are -- weak and illogical. Based on your logic no official should EVER be removed, regardless of how many bad calls they make. Based on your logic no one who has never ref'd that specific sport has any knowledge of the game to judge the RESULTS or VERACITY of an official's call. You are entirely too defensive on this -- and yes "fanboys" have knowledge, wisdom, and judgment. Being an official does not wisdom nor correctness convey -- a point you clear have missed.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by nakemiin

While not an official referee I have not only watched countless games, played in games, and (more importantly) studied the official rules (including the changes from year to year). My qualifications -- probably none by your implied standards, other than a love of the game, a thorough understanding of the game, indepth understanding of the rules. Based on your definition no one who has not officiated in a specific sport has any right to question any on floor ruling. What nonsense.

What I DID say was that if there is a pattern of poor performance, wrong calls (flagrant), then they should be removed.

Well, how about this, fanboy....

You post where and when you're next soccer game is. I'll come to your game and watch you for a few minutes. Now, I don't know the first damn thing about soccer or the rules, but that ain't gonna make any nevermind to me. Nosiree, fanboy, it surashell ain't. I'll write a letter to your local newspaper and your officiating association demanding that you never be allowed to officiate another soccer game in your life. I'll tell them that I've literally seen dozens of soccer games on tv, and it's obvious to me as an extremely qualified expert that there is certainly a pattern of poor performance attached to your game-calling. Has your local soccer refereeing association got a website too? Please give the addy also so that I can make numerous posts there about your shoddy officiating.

Does that sound just about right to you?