Duke/Clemson timing error

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.