Conference Tournaments

[Nevadaref]

Does anyone know if the officials in the Akron/Miami(OH) game were using Precision Timing? The game was played at Quicken Arena in Cleveland where the Cavs play.

I ask because I am curious as to whose responsibility it was to start the clock on the missed FT.

[Mark Dexter]

Hey, Nevada - has JT (the original) moved from his seat since last night's game?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Does anyone know if the officials in the Akron/Miami(OH) game were using Precision Timing? The game was played at Quicken Arena in Cleveland where the Cavs play.

I ask because I am curious as to whose responsibility it was to start the clock on the missed FT.

Just saw the full replay. I didn't get a great look, but it sure didn't look like the C was wearing a PT device.

EDIT: On the last throw-in (with 0.6 on the clock), the T administering the throw had one hand raised and the other was counting. I'm always shocked when conferences (or the NCAA) opt NOT to use Precision Timing when it's available.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Just saw the full replay. I didn't get a great look, but it sure didn't look like the C was wearing a PT device.

I heard an announcer say that they don't use PT devices in the NCAA Tournament. Is that true? If so, does anyone know why that is? I see mostly ACC basketball and they've always used them. Are there some conferences that don't?

[Nevadaref]

That is true. BktBallRef provided that info a couple of years ago to the forum and the reason was that not all of the host sites had it, so the NCAA committee opted not to use it in any venue just so that all of the playing conditions were as equal as possible.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

I heard an announcer say that they don't use PT devices in the NCAA Tournament. Is that true? If so, does anyone know why that is? I see mostly ACC basketball and they've always used them. Are there some conferences that don't?

Past few years, they haven't used PT in any round of the NCAA's. The reason cited most often on this board is that, since not all NCAA sites have PT, they shouldn't use it at any site.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Past few years, they haven't used PT in any round of the NCAA's. The reason cited most often on this board is that, since not all NCAA sites have PT, they shouldn't use it at any site.

Is there an echo in here?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Just saw the full replay. I didn't get a great look, but it sure didn't look like the C was wearing a PT device.

EDIT: On the last throw-in (with 0.6 on the clock), the T administering the throw had one hand raised and the other was counting. I'm always shocked when conferences (or the NCAA) opt NOT to use Precision Timing when it's available.

Sharp eye, Mark. That should indicate that PT was not being used. Thanks.

PS I have a theory as to how the officials got 0.6 seconds to put back on the clock. I believe that they totally blew it logically. As you can see on the replays the game clock on the top of the backboard shows 0.0 or 0.1 as the ball goes through, so it didn't come from there. In the broadcast the R can be seen with a stopwatch in his right hand while kneeling in front of the monitor. I believe that he timed the interval between the tap on the missed FT and when the clock finally started and came up with 0.6. However, he then mistakenly believed that he had to ADD that time to the game clock instead of SUBTRACT it! So he ordered 0.6 put back and the last throw-in for Akron.

Does that seem plausible to anyone?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sharp eye, Mark. That should indicate that PT was not being used. Thanks.

PS I have a theory as to how the officials got 0.6 seconds to put back on the clock. I believe that they totally blew it logically. As you can see on the replays the game clock on the top of the backboard shows 0.0 or 0.1 as the ball goes through, so it didn't come from there. In the broadcast the R can be seen with a stopwatch in his right hand while kneeling in front of the monitor. I believe that he timed the interval between the tap on the missed FT and when the clock finally started and came up with 0.6. However, he then mistakenly believed that he had to ADD that time to the game clock instead of SUBTRACT it! So he ordered 0.6 put back and the last throw-in for Akron.

Does that seem plausible to anyone?

Eh. It's not totally implausible. The refs knew that the clock started late. For three refs to hear the horn go off, know that the clock started late, then ADD time to the clock seems like a big brain fart.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=270692006

[Nevadaref]

From the ESPN article Dexter cited:

"At the scorer's table, officials used a stop watch to determine if the MAC title had been decided or not. They concluded that the clock should have started more quickly following Middleton's miss and sent both teams back on the floor."

So, I ask again, what kind of logic is that?

Don't these guys know the difference between addition and subtraction?

Since this game was played in Ohio perhaps we could get MTD to give them a lesson.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So, I ask again, what kind of logic is that?

I'm still as confused as you are. (And, as a GW graduate, to say that I'm as confused as a Georgetown grad is pretty damn confused!)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I'm still as confused as you are. (And, as a GW graduate, to say that I'm as confused as a Georgetown grad is pretty damn confused!)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

From the ESPN article Dexter cited:

"At the scorer's table, officials used a stop watch to determine if the MAC title had been decided or not. They concluded that the clock should have started more quickly following Middleton's miss and sent both teams back on the floor."

So, I ask again, what kind of logic is that?

Don't these guys know the difference between addition and subtraction?

Sigh......

From the article......
- there was 6.6 seconds on the clock when the ball was touched on the missed FT. The clock was supposed to start then but didn't.
- the R used a stopwatch on the replay to determine that exactly 6.0 seconds elapsed from the touching on the FT to the time the made shot went through the net.
- the official got a grad from some other college than Georgetown or George Washington to subtract 6.0 seconds from 6.6 seconds, and he got the answer of 0.6 seconds.
- sooooooo....the R then put 0.6 seconds back on the clock.

It ain't nuclear physics. It also doesn't matter what any clock showed either.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

PS I have a theory as to how the officials got 0.6 seconds to put back on the clock. I believe that they totally blew it logically. As you can see on the replays the game clock on the top of the backboard shows 0.0 or 0.1 as the ball goes through, so it didn't come from there. In the broadcast the R can be seen with a stopwatch in his right hand while kneeling in front of the monitor. I believe that he timed the interval between the tap on the missed FT and when the clock finally started and came up with 0.6. However, he then mistakenly believed that he had to ADD that time to the game clock instead of SUBTRACT it! So he ordered 0.6 put back and the last throw-in for Akron.

Does that seem plausible to anyone?

No. The R timed the interval between the tap on the missed FT and when the made shot went through and came up with 6.0 seconds. That lets him know whether the shot actually was made in time and also how much time remained after the last basket went through. That's logical.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No. The R timed the interval between the tap on the missed FT and when the made shot went through and came up with 6.0 seconds. That lets him know whether the shot actually was made in time and also how much time remained after the last basket went through. That's logical.

That might have been what you would have done, and it would make perfect sense to do it that way, but please tell me how you know that is what the R on that game did?
The fact is you don't. You weren't there and you haven't spoken with him. So you can know. Perhaps what I posited is in fact what happened. You can't prove that it didn't.

However, it can be conclusively proven from the video that from the time the ball was first touched after the missed FT to when the ball passed through the basket took more than 6.0 seconds. Even ESPN has already demonstrated this. Their clock times 6.5 seconds from the first touch just to the release of the shot. Now how much more time do you think that it took the ball to fly through the air, hit the backboard, and then pass through the net? The answer isn't -0.5 seconds. So you've got this one wrong.

Lah you.