Conference Tournaments

[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?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Just FYI (and I'm not sure if anyone else brought it up), any team that wins its conference regular-season championship but then does not get an NCAA bid is guaranteed a spot in the NIT.

This must be new policy then. Vermont lost its big man in the first minute then had the ball down by one with 32 seconds and did not get a shot off. 25-7 & off to the NIT, I guess.

[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

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

This must be new policy then. Vermont lost its big man in the first minute then had the ball down by one with 32 seconds and did not get a shot off. 25-7 & off to the NIT, I guess.

First put in place last year. (My guess - as a result of the NCAA owning the NIT.)

http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_an...6_nit_rls.html

[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!)

[Mark Dexter]

I am NOT happy with Pitt tonight.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I am NOT happy with Pitt tonight.

I am.

PS Did they just miss a backcourt violation against Utah St. with 1 minute remaining? It looked like he bounced the ball on the division line.

[Nevadaref]

32.1 left on the game clock and 8 on the shot clock. Utah St steals the ball and then gets tied up before requesting time-out. Reggie Theus just asked for a shot clock reset and the officials told him no.

[Mark Dexter]

I took my stopwatch and tried to figure out what was going on.

By my expert timing (two trials, sitting on my couch at home), the game clock started either 1.2 or 1.5 seconds late. The way I saw it, the shot was released with 1.3 on the clock. Miami was either a tenth of a second early, or got the shot off two-tenths of a second late.

ESPN actually did a good job of breaking it down on SportsCenter - showing the game clock and a graphic of what the clock should have been. According to their graphics, there was a 1.3 second differential between the tip and the clock starting. By their look, the ball was released when the game clock read 1.4 and the ESPN correct clock read 0.1.

HOWEVER - the video game clock and the clock above the basket were not in synch - the above-the-basket time was 0.1 LOWER than the time shown in the clock display on the screen. While this is understandable when digital graphics are used, the clock shown was a live feed from one of the stadium clocks. Methinks that arena might be taking a look at its clocks before the next game there.

Just curious - does anyone think we'll get an NCAA ruling out of this? Either designating an "official" clock or, perhaps, reversing the interpretation that you look first for :00.0 on the monitor when reviewing a last-second shot?

[Nevadaref]

Mark,
That is an excellent and informative post.
I agree that the NCAA still has some clean up work to do in their timing rules.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Mark,
That is an excellent and informative post.
I agree that the NCAA still has some clean up work to do in their timing rules.

Wow - I think my head is spinning even more after reading through the rulebook, given all the contradictions. According to Rule 2, refs can only look at 0:00.0 on the clock, not the red light or the sound of the horn to determine whether a shot was good or not. Under Rule 5, however, the refs ARE permitted to look at the lights or listen for the horn (in that order) when the official clock is not shown on the replay.

Rule two seems to contradict itself further. Under 2-5-1(g), the refs can look at the monitor to fix a timing mistake (whistle, but the clock still runs). Under 2-6-2, in non-monitor games, the ref can have the game clock corrected when time runs off after a whistle and he has definite knowledge. The ARs (9, 10, 14) however, indicate that the referee can only put the time back on if more than 1 second has elapsed (i.e., the old NFHS lag time rule)!! I thought that NCAA allowed setting the exact time in both situations (and, frankly, this is what I've seen all college refs do.)

My favorite is the insistence that all the replay equipment - including the VCR unit - has to be located tableside. Yet, in my years of scorekeeping, I've never seen a TV truck parked on the bench next to me.

Now for the good. AR 120 says that, if the clock doesn't run when it should, you can go to the monitor to try to figure out how much time should have come off. I think it would be in the NCAA's best interest to explicitly state, however, that if there were (for example) 1.0 seconds left on the clock, and the ref timed the play at 1.5 seconds from touch to try (using a stopwatch), the basket would not count.

Of course, my favorite is AR 121. I won't post it here, though, as I don't want to re-open THAT set of arguments for NFHS.

[Mark Dexter]

If you go to the game webpage (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=270692006), ESPN has posted video.

If you pause the replay, you can see the 0.1 differential between the on-screen clock (white, lower-right of the screen) and the on-court clock (gold, upper/mid-right of the screen).

Also, from the replay of the shot about 75-80% of the way through the video, the ball appears to leave the shooter's hands with 1.3 (though it could be 1.2 or 1.4) on the on-court clock. Given the ESPN value of a 1.3 second delay, it makes for an interesting dillema. What I wouldn't give to have a TIVO right about now, instead of watching this online.

[Nevadaref]

I just went to that video link and paused it as the ball is in the net. The clocks on the cubical display mounted above the backboard show 0.0, while the ESPN graphic clock in the lower right corner is showing 0.2 seconds. Thus there is actually a difference of TWO TENTHS of a second between the clocks! Not good. This is going to be a big deal since it could cost Akron an NCAA bid.

The more publicity this thing gets, the more the selection committee might feel pressured to grant Akron an at-large berth.