Duke/Clemson timing error
 

I was wondering if you guys had any thoughts on the timing error at the end of the Duke/Clemson game last night.

Yep, I seen the play. I thought more than .6 sec ran off the clock. It went from 5.0 to 4.4 after they corrected the time. Think about it.


SIT:: The Clemson player caught the errant pass, dribble, took a step back behind the three point line and fired the three. The clock never started in the sequence. It actually did not start until a Duke player had the ball OOB again. The officials put 4.4 on the clock.

To be honest when I seen that they put that much time back on the scoreboard. The Laettner game winning shot came to mind.

To bad for Clemson they played a very good game.

Did they have precision time?

Yes they had precesion timing.

There was definetely not enough time taken off. I was thinking it would be closer to 3 seconds. It is .3 that you can only tip the ball so it doesn't seem right to say that .6 took place when the player caught the ball, stepped back to the 3pt line, shot the ball and then it cleared the net.

The clock appropriately stopped after the 2pt made basket with 5 seconds left and I'm guessing that the officials forgot to start their precision timers when the Clemson player caught the ball.

When using Precision Timing is it the officials or the table or both that are responsible for starting the clock after it has been stopped for a made basket?


On a side note that kid had some calm nerves to not expect the ball and then calmly knock down that 3!:eek:

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? :D

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=270250150
Hey, look Ma, this puts me at 1,000...yaaaayyyyy

GO Figure
 

"Dad got HOSED"

I thought it was the officials (all 3) responsibility to make sure the clock has properly started and when they blow the whistle, it automatically stops.

Who here has DEFINITE knowledge on how much time should be taken off?

Yep, that's what I thought.

Both.

I guess precision timing is only as precise as those who use it!!!!!! I am sure those guys did the best they could in their own eyes.

If they are using the PTS
 

There is also a table device that starts the clock if the officials do not start the clock. It is not all about the officials. Basically 4 people can start the clock at anytime.

Peace

Thanks for the clarification! Have you ever used this device? I believe in VA it is used in the State Campionships.

I have used this system about 4 times in my career. I work in a conference that had two teams that had the device for their home games.

Peace

For those of you that have seen the play/saw the game:

I understand that more than .6 seconds elapsed -- that seems to be clear. But, is there anyway that the only definite knowledge that the officials had was .6 seconds? Regardless of everyone guestimating that it took 2.5 seconds to get the shot off, what actions, from what you guys saw, would justify them putting 4.4 back up?

Is it possible that, since there was no definite knowledge, it could have been .3 + .3, that is, reaction time to start, plus reaction time to stop, that led them to take .6 off?

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.

I saw the game live.
 

To be fair, I do not even know if the officials knew the clock did not start properly. It was obvious that the clock did not stop properly after Clemson made the game tying 3 point shot. I watched the game live and I think the focus was much more on the clock stopping after the shot. Also to say that Duke got the better of the deal is really not fair either. If the clock started properly that could have hurt Clemson. Remember, there was an errant pass that happen to fall into the Clemson's hand. The Clemson player happened to be in perfect position to shoot a shot. If he was further out from the 3 point line or below the 3 point line, they might not have gotten off a good shot. The glaring timing mistake was after the shot not before. I am not even sure they looked at the clock before hand to be sure it started properly.

Without the timing mistake, Clemson still should not allow a team to go the court length and hit a lay-up. You do not deserve to win in that case.

Peace

Are they allowed to have a stop watch at the table for these purposes?

They could have watched the play in real time and started it when the clemson player caught the ball and stopped it when it cleared the net. This seems like a good way to put the correct time on the clock when the clock was not started on time.

How would you have determined the correct amount of time to put on the clock?

As far as why the officials ran 0.6 off the clock, I'm guessing, during the video review, that's the amount of time they saw elapse off the game clock between the time the clock finally started and when the basketball went through the basket. Meaning, the clock was originally at 5.0, it didn't start until the ball was about to go through the hoop, the ball passed through the hoop, the clock read 4.4, then it continued to run down to 1.8 when the mistake was finally noticed. In this case, the only definite knowledge the officials would have had was the 0.6 seconds.

That makes sense. Under the definite knowledge rule, there is no way the officials could definitely determine elapsed time while the ball is in the air without some sort of on court count, etc. The only thing they can do is put the time they know back up (or off in this case). If BadNewsRef's interpretation of what happened is correct, then I don't see any fault on the officials' part, however unfortunate that may be for Clemson, in this game.

I do not see a stop clock as apart of the rules application. Remember SportsCenter can do that with their graphics on the screen. It is not like the officials get that kind of look. Maybe that might be apart of something in the future, but right now that is not a standardize situation.

Peace

I didn't see the play or any video on it, but I *think* that the officials are allowed to ask the TV folks for timing information (e.g., between the time the ball is touched inbounds and the time the ball leaves the bottom of the net, how many "frames" are used and how much time does that equal).

So you want all three officials watching the ball and starting the clcok?

No, that's not the way it works. The offiical who would normally chop the clock, starts it. Also, the timer should start the clock.

We have about 10 schools who use PT. Most of the time, it works correctly. Sometimes, you can push you finger through the bottom of the box and it still doesn't start.

Bottom line, there was 4.4 seconds on the clock when Duke inbounded the ball. Clemson did nothing to stop an open layup to end the game. So the Tigers and their fans can sit around, whine, moan, b!tch and complain that they were robbed. Or they can admit, "We blew it defensively!"

Didn't we just finish (I hope) arguing about a similar play with 1 second on the clock when the play started?

Soooooo.....if the ball was in the cylinder with 5 seconds to go, that was the exact time observed. You now just subtract the time that elapsed from that point until the ball went through the basket. Correct?

Now wasn't that easy? :D

As an official I agree with all these comments. However, as a basketball fan I throw up the BS flag and say Duke sure does have a lot of coincidental things go in their favor.

Do you think officials cheat for Duke? :confused:

I think you are then drinking the Kool aid. Because there are a lot of times Duke did not benefit from a call in some very big moments. I can think of when Indiana (your home state :D) beat Duke and there could have been an argument there was a foul to a "star player" in the last couple of seconds.

Peace

Nice job BBR
 

BBR, It is good to see you in the Dukies corner :eek: ....I know it is tough for you, but I agree with everything you have said, and we all know that the officials don't cheat for the Dukies, and to suggest so calls into question any officials integrity...

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 ......:D

Did anyone notice one of the officials for this game was Tom Lopes? The same gentleman that was called out in the Georgia/Alabama game last weekend. How much more hot water can he get into???

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

Why didn't they check the monitor?

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.

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.

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

Peace

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

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

Sorry about that, you whiny <b>big</b> hemmorhoid, you....:D

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.

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

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.

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.

Missing the Point
 

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

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.

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.

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.

Automated Systems
 

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.

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

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 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.

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......:D

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.

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.

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.

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

Second-- So....if you're not a basketball referee, exactly what <b>are</b> 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 <b>not</b> a basketball official, exactly what <b>are</b> 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 <b>never</b> 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 <i>genus</i>. 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 <b>asking</b> if a bad call was made in the game, you <b>tell</b> us that a bad call was made. Typical fanboy crap iow.

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 <b>our</b> forum.:D

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?

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.

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 <b>demanding</b> 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?:)

No, no no....

You're completely misinterpreting what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying that no official should ever take ignorant fanboys like you seriously. I sureashell don't.

Clowns like you always slither out of their hiding places at this time of year to whine about the mean old referees screwing their teams. It must be a Law of Nature or something because it happens every year. Hey, don't let me stop you though. Do what you gotta do, fanboy. Just don't operate under the illusion that anyone actually takes you or the other fanboys like you seriously. You're comic relief.

Carry on.:D

Nethanderal
 

1. Glad to, when soccer season starts.

2. Once again you illustrate your immaturity, when you say you don't know anything about soccer but are willing to comment on the officiating.

3. And you demonstrate your vindictiveness when you talk about writting a letter to papers and the website. The bottom line is you STILL do not understand what I was saying in the beginning, and you seem more interested in fighting and whining. If you, as a referee, can't stand the criticism then get out of the game -- quit trying to blame the fans. (And by the way, it's "fans" -- not fanboy.)

In the end, trying to hold an adult discussion with you, where the facts and ideas are paramount as opposed to simply casting aspersions, is pointless. Reminds me of that old saying -- "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig loves it." So with that, I'll let you go on with your misperceptions.

Once again, when pressed on the facts and logic you resort to personal attacks. You show yourself for what you are. If you think your pitiful assault on fans has any effect at all -- you are sadly mistaken. Debate or argue like an adult, with dignity, logic, and decorum.

You really don't get it, do you?

Whatinthehell do you think <b>YOU</b> are doing? You don't know a damn thing about basketball officiating-the rules, mechanics or philosophies- and you've never officiated a basketball game in your damn life...but <b>YOU</b> think that you're eminently qualified to judge top-level NCAA D1 basketball officials? Well, what's wrong with that picture, fanboy?

And you think that I'm being vindicitive, but <b>YOU</b> can't see anything wrong with <b>YOU</b> coming on <b>this</b> website and crapping all over basketball officials.

Give your head a shake, fanboy. Then screw off.

Facts and logic? Some ignorant, clueless fan who knows absolutely nothing about basketball officiating thinks that his verbal diarrhea equates to "facts and logic"? How can anybody debate with someone that knows absolutely nothing about the subject that he wants to debate? What color is the sky in your world anyway, fanboy?

Lah me....

Every damn year without fail....:rolleyes:

Not in the Dookies corner, CM. In the officials corner.

How about those Arizona Wildcats from the great Pac-10, the best conference in the country!!!!!! Embarrassed at home by a bunch on Tar Babies, on national TV! :o

I can agree with you to some extent about the officials.

If you watched the game today I hope you noticed the officiating. There is nothing nobody could have done to help Arizonal today, but I hope you will agree that wasn't the best officiated game an ACC crew has done. I don't think I would feel too good about some of the calls in that game.

I hope we can talk about things like this; it isn't like we are saying these things in the stands with a whole bunch of fans around us.

1. Upon what do you base your assertion --- you don't know anything about the depth of my knowledge about the rule, mechanics or philosophies.

2. As I have attempted to explain before, but you are too dense to appreciate, is that you don't have to BE an official to know the rules and be able to see when a call is in error. Based on your lame assertions, if you have never umpired a tennis match you could never even comment on whether the ball lands outside the court, or hits the net on a serve. Can't you see how patently ridiculous you position is? (No, I suppose not -- which is precisely the problem.)

3. I never said all officials are bad -- go back and read my posts. The comment I made that sticks in your craw is the assertion that if an official has a pattern (over games or seasons) of making poor calls then he or she should be removed. Why is that so extreme, and so difficult for you to appreciate?

You language and tone indicate you are, if not uneducated, at least crude and rude. I'm beginning to doubt if you are even an official -- perhaps a 16 or 17 year old masquerading as one.

Okay, Nethanderal man, please justify you statement. What is this thread that I have written can possibly lead you to that conclusion? Nothing -- there is nothing in this thread about the depth of knowledge that you can make that judgment on. Thus, you have just reaffirmed your assertion and protestations are baseless. LOL

Can someone get rid of this guy, or at least shut this thing down?

I hope you are watching the OSU and MSU game -- for there again is an example of an officiating error. On an MSU shot under the basket, Oden batted it down (pulled it down) -- and it was ruled by the ref that it hadn't gone above the rim so couldn't have gone in. But the video reply showed CLEARLY that it was above the rim and that goaltending should have been called. By your definition, no one in the entire court could possibly criticize that call -- because they are not officials. Nonsense -- go look at the video of the game - then recant your nonsense.

Ah, soccer. Ninety minutes of nonstop action. First team to one wins

Ah -- democracy at its finest. Problems with Article 1 of the Bill of Rights have we?

I see your knowledge of the constitution is as deep as your knowledge of officiating basketball, in other words all theory, bluster, and wishful thinking. And no real experience.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This board is private property, and as such its owners and their agents can limit the speech of any person here in any way they choose. Legally. If the mods were to shut you down, remove your posts, delete your account, and block your access to this forum in perpetuity, it would in no way violate the constitution's prohibition against congress ... abridging the freedom of speech.

And while I have your attention, let me just assure you that the Jurassic one is certainly not some adolecent masquerading as a curmudgeon. He is, in fact, a very real curmudgeon. And let me get you up to speed on how this works. Every year around this time, whiney fans show up here to complain about how their team got shafted. With no perceivable rules knowledge, no officiating experience, and all the objectivity of Al Gore on the eve of that fateful Supreme Court decision, they come spewing vitriol and venom, caustically self-assured of the righteousness of thier indignation. I don't know why they think they're going to get a sympathetic reception here. But we don't want them here and we get rid of them. JR is chairman of the welcoming committee, he's done a bang up job of it, and was recently re-elected to his post. Unanimously.

By the way, you're a bit early for the main influx of fanboys. That usually doesn't happen until March. So consider yourself lucky that JR is just getting warmed up and isn't in full stride yet.

Now that you're up to speed on history, especially historic patterns, as that seems to be of interest to you, let's talk recent history.

Who was it that wandered into the forum, made very assertive statements about top-rated officials blowing judgement calls (based on such conclusive evidence as the reaction of some Clemsen fans) and began talking about forming a process to remove referees? Hmmmm, that would be you. Can you see how that wouldn't warrant you a warm reception? I didn't think it would, but I figured it would be worth a try.

So why don't you take your fascinating theories and penchant for lively debate to where you'll get a warmer reception. Like your neighborhood sports bar. Oh, and if the bartender tires of your patter, drop that line about Article I on him. He'll be impressed. :cool:

Naw, I'm done talking to the goober. Waste of time anyway...which I knew from the git-go.

I just get thoooooo mad thometimes.......:)

LOL....when I'm on vacation, you get to take over now.:D

Okay, the Neanderthal and the Jurassic periods were quite a long ways apart, so this comment is completely non sequitur. Just FYI...

Those are some mighty big shoes to fill, but I'll do my best. Should I water your plants and bring in your mail while I'm at it? :)

Period? Epoch?
 

The Jurassic was indeed a Period. I'm not even sure that the Neanderthal was an Epoch? Check it out on the Geologic Time Table.

You Missed the Point(s)
 

Back in the Saddle:

Your diatribe misses the entire point. First, the reference to Article 1 was solely to illustrate the fact that it appears that JR feels free to denigrate anyone who does not agree with his position and try to "shut them down". Hardly the hallmark of free speech.

Concerning the comments in the second paragraph above, you again miss the salient issue. If the officiating community cannot (or will not) self-enforce itself adequately, then a few (yes, probably a very few) will continue to harm the game. My point had nothing to do with the specific call in the Clemson game, but rather when a pattern of the general quality of officiating by a referee over several years should be addressed. Since you didn't like my idea, what do YOU propose as a solution? Better training? Better qualification procedures? More use of video replays? Instead of fussing at my idea, offer some of your own.

But no, JR, and apparently you, would rather engage in personal attacks questioning my knowledge (of which you have NO information), my character and integrity (of which you, i.e., JR, know nothing), and my intent (which has been totally mischaracterized).

It's disappointing that in this forum civility has been abandoned, that motivations are impugned, that logic is twisted, but (more importantly) that no one seems to care about improving the product - officiating.

I would think that officials, of all people, would be concerned. If you care so little about solving potential problems in the officiating game, then why do you officiate? Does a friendly debate over the issues so frighten you?

Since it is abundantly clear that nothing I say is going to change your opinion -- and since JR's and your attacks have done nothing more than to convince me that you are narrow minded and defensive -- there's no point in continuing this conversation.

The ball being above the rim does not equate to goaltending.

And so what if the official missed one goal-tending call, that means that official is showing a pattern of ineptitude? :confused:

Goaltending in almost all cases is a judgement call. It's really easy to sit at home with TIVO and ref a perfect game.

How about fire all those soccer officials who continually get suckered by the flopping that soccer players do?

Let me explain something to you. The GOVERNMENT cannot restrict your right to free expression and free speech. I've got news for you Richard Cranium, this site is not owned by the GOVERNMENT. The admins on this board can shut you down anytime they want to. Something you might want to remember.

Once again, can somone get rid of this idiot fanboy?

LOL. Truer words....:)

(to pile on, as I was just watching said hemmoroid)
 

...and the school, itself, was essentially founded by what is arguably the most vile (legal) industry on the planet.

On another side note - 6 feet, unobstructed space off the endline? My rosy red backside. Ridiculous. Do all schools get to carry on with blatant disregard for NCAA rules, or just the upper tier of the "Big Time?"

(I'm all hopped up on multiple cold meds right now, so it's more difficult to mask my contempt for that coach and school at the moment.)

Gimme a ****ing break. So since Washington Duke owned a tobacco business and donated money to the university, that taints everything that has anything to do with the University.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy maroon.

Nope, water my mail and bring in my plants.

Is it just me, or is this thread headed to new hights of stoopidity? We seem to boldly going where no man has gone before.

Yes, if for no other reason, simply because I don't like Duke.;)

Why don't you like Duke?

(...this outghta be good...)

Well, just to help you with your ignorance, Duke University Medical Center is one of the leading medical facilities in the country. I've had several friends treated for cancer their. Most recently, on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, a friend who hit a deer while riding his Harley was airlifted to Duke in critical condition, not expected to live. I spoke with him in church this morning.

Feel free to dislike their coach, team and fans. I do. But don't let the fanboy in you blind you to the fact that it is one of the finest universities in this country, just because one of their early contributors was a tobacco farmer. If that's the case, you might want to consider that you live in a country which achieved it's independence because of a few tobacco farmers, among others.

Easy there, BBR. Totally understood (and previously aware) on all accounts -- and very glad to hear about your friend.

Shouldn't JRut be jumping into this discussion right about now? :p

Holy backtracking. So after reading you go on and on, your point is that bad officials should not get more work?

If so, you can probably stop posting. Your covered. The officials at the level you've been discussing are scrutinized to a level that would cause most of us to, I imagine, wither severely if we were exposed to it in our day jobs.

I think where people are bristling, and the place where you're coming off as extremely unself-aware, is your implication that you're in position to be the judge. When you try to back it up by noting that a ref in a game you watched on tv missed a GT call, you just embarrass yourself.

2 articles
 

ACC admits timing error in Duke-Clemson game

League review concludes clock inaccurate in closing seconds of Blue Devils' win

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/c...orts-headlines

Updated: Jan. 27, 2007, 11:31 PM ET
ACC admits to 'timing error' in final seconds

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

Gee, thanks Nevada. I'd forgotten all about this story since I posted it way back on page 3.....last Friday....at 8.36pm.:D

Old School should go first, then we can worry about this guy.

This is either brilliant irony, or new lows in stoopidity. :D

There was also a <i>"Chuck Elias"</i><b>(tm)</b> joke folded into the response too. I know that you're a relatively new guy here, Scrappy, so lemme 'splain some of the background to ya.

We had this l'il short feller named Chuck Elias that used to post here a lot. A bunch of us used to tease the Chuckster a little about being so....um....vertically challenged. Iow, Chuck has to stand on a chair to kick a duck in the azz. That's because Chuck stands...oh....at a guess..... about 3feet16 inches high. We never really meant anything derogatory with the kidding though. Well, except for maybe Dan-ref. He mighta been the exception. The lad has a mean streak in him. Anyhow, ol' Chuck has departed our earthly bounds and has flown off to greater heights. He only appears here on special occasions now, such as the thread that he started a few days ago. Iow, it's kinda like saying "Elvis is in the building" when he come back to make an appearance. The men cheer and the wimmen throw their bras at him. So, despite the fact that Chuck is a short, aggravating l'il sh!t, we still like to fun around with him. And honor his past contributions also, of course.


<b>Gone But Not Forgotten</b>
http://1000smilies.com/tombstone.gif
<b>Chuck Elias</b>

So that's the backstory, Scrappy. Wierd, eh?

Awww geeze, thanks. I'm truly honored.

Shut up.<i></i>