A&M/Memphis finish

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There is, or was, some guidance given to the officials on what to do if an airborne player heading out of bounds requested a TO and the official blew the whistle.

I'd use the same type of precedent here.

hmmm...move the throw-in team up to the spot of the ball at the whistle, take off whatever time should have elapsed from touch to whistle & resume the game?

I don't agree the guidance you reference applies to this case.

btw, i still don't agree there was a whistle

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

I did a little experiment, just me and my stopwatch. I cannot start and stop it without AT LEAST .12 seconds running off. Now, I'm no NCAA clock operator, but I'm pretty sure it didn't start either.

I tried and I could do it in .09 ..... after trying a few times.

[BillP73]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

It seems to me that instead of people in our positions questioning whether they did things correctly or not, we might take a different perspective and think, "Hm. These are the best refs in the NCAA in interpreting and administering the rules as the directors and managers want them handled. What can I learn from this? There must be an interp somewhere that allows them to disregard the whistle in fixing the clock. After all, they had time to discuss the situation, and help in remembering the various rules and interps that they've heard. They had at least as good a view of the play as we had, perhaps a better view at crucial points. I'm going to put this whole situation into the file cabinet, and pull it out again next time I need to, to see if I can learn something from it."

Just because WE don't understand or agree, doesn't mean that THEY are wrong.

It seems to me that based on that logic, there's no need for about 50% of this message board. Or at the very least, everyone should be obligated to order a copy of the most recent release of interps from the given league in question before positing any opinions.

I don't think taking the rules as published at face value, and offering an opinion that corresponds with them, is irresponsible, nor implying that the refs in question aren't "good".

One official blew/signaled the play dead well before it hit an out-of-bounds object. So no matter how you look at it, an official, at some juncture, didn't get the call exactly right here. Fine. They are not robots.

On the other hand...they are not robots. Even when they may take 6 minutes to make a decision.

Can't really have it both ways.

[socalreff]

[QUOTE=JRutledge]He is calling you a fanboy not because you are rooting for Texas A&M. He is calling you a fanboy because you are coming from a point of view of a fan and not an official's point of view (which is the same opinion of your posts).




The fact that you have only worked basketball for 4 years says a lot. You do not have the experience in my opinion (based on your current answers as well) to know what they "should have done." I do work college basketball and I have never had a media game to use a monitor, but your opinion is very flawed. You are not going to ever have a couple of tenths come off a clock if the clock was started properly. Then again, you are just a rookie in many officials’ eyes. I will just consider the source.

I have worked games with a monitor and have reviewed the guidelines(we're required to). I timed the play myself from touch to when it touched out of bounds and came up with with 1 second even off the clock. I only did it once and I saw the officials had a stopwatch. They are supposed to use it in just such an instance and detrmine how much time elapsed. I'm sure they ran it 3 times and took the average. Very nice job!!!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by BillP73

It seems to me that based on that logic, there's no need for about 50% of this message board. Or at the very least, everyone should be obligated to order a copy of the most recent release of interps from the given league in question before positing any opinions.

I don't think taking the rules as published at face value, and offering an opinion that corresponds with them, is irresponsible, nor implying that the refs in question aren't "good".

One official blew/signaled the play dead well before it hit an out-of-bounds object. So no matter how you look at it, an official, at some juncture, didn't get the call exactly right here. Fine. They are not robots.

On the other hand...they are not robots. Even when they may take 6 minutes to make a decision.

Can't really have it both ways.

I don't really have a problem with people asking questions and trying to understand. I do have a problem with us assuming they got it wrong because we dont understand, which some of us are clearly doing. Perhaps not you. I don't KNOW that "One official blew/signaled the play dead". We hear a whistle, but we don't know why that whistle was blown. Perhaps it was just a premature whistle, knowing full well that the clock hadn't started and that the ball was going out of bounds. THat is, we don't know what that ref was thinking, so we can't assum it was supposed to be a signal as to when the clock should stop. I just think that all the comments about "I can't believe the ref ignored the whistle, and timed clear till the ball touched the table person?" are really short-sighted and small minded.

[BillP73]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I don't really have a problem with people asking questions and trying to understand. I do have a problem with us assuming they got it wrong because we dont understand, which some of us are clearly doing. Perhaps not you. I don't KNOW that "One official blew/signaled the play dead". We hear a whistle, but we don't know why that whistle was blown. Perhaps it was just a premature whistle, knowing full well that the clock hadn't started and that the ball was going out of bounds. THat is, we don't know what that ref was thinking, so we can't assum it was supposed to be a signal as to when the clock should stop. I just think that all the comments about "I can't believe the ref ignored the whistle, and timed clear till the ball touched the table person?" are really short-sighted and small minded.

Fair enough, rain.

I'd like to see the NCAA come forth today and make a comment on the decision process. I'm more than willing to give them the opportunity to put forth a reasonable explanation. It's certainly not too much to ask considering the weight of the game.

BTW, while I stand on the side of believing an error was likely made...none of this cost A&M the game. The half-second we're fretting about wasn't going to net Kirk some clear 20-foot shot. I'm more concerned with the precedent this may have set in regard to how they decide to start using replay.

Further, they are taking way too much time to look at these plays. I haven't gone into the archives to check out the chatter on the Miami/Akron game...but that dwarfed last night in terms of poor use of the replay monitor.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If somebody is interpreting it that the signal wasn't made until the ball touched someone OOB then sure everything was done according to how it should have, I just saw it as the signal came as soon as the ball hit the ground.

Furthermore, I've changed my stance on the stopwatch. The rules to call for a stopwatch to be placed tableside for the use of timing TO's. Not sure it was intended for the way it was used last night, but that's where 2.3 comes in.

In the end it comes down to the question of do we get it right or do we do it by the rules. NCAA Rule 2.2.1 seems to say we do second.

In all NCAA games, there is supposed to be a stopwatch at the table for various reasons. The shot clock malfunctions and you need a stopwatch to replace it, timing timeouts, and definitely for plays where there was a timer's mistake. In fact I saw a game in the PAC 10 tourney 2 weeks ago that was almost identical to the play. They used a stopwatch to determine how much time elapsed. This is by supervisor edict.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why is it a bad move to take the proper amount of time off the clock? How is it fair to the defense to only take off a .2 or .3?



Would you like to bet that he'll be working on Saturday or Sunday?



You heard the whistle?



Neither would I. i would make such a silly statement. But the ball definitely hit inbounds. it wasn't even close.



Is that how you make calls, based on whether someone is going to say something or not?

The clock didn't properly start. The officials must determine how much time lapsed from the time it was touched inbounds until it was touched OOB. That's what they did. The rest is just BS. I promise, Hank Nihols will back the call.

I agree with you on everything....but I believe I did hear the whistle on replay several times. Not certain.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BillP73

Fair enough, rain.

I'd like to see the NCAA come forth today and make a comment on the decision process. I'm more than willing to give them the opportunity to put forth a reasonable explanation. It's certainly not too much to ask considering the weight of the game.

BTW, while I stand on the side of believing an error was likely made...none of this cost A&M the game. The half-second we're fretting about wasn't going to net Kirk some clear 20-foot shot. I'm more concerned with the precedent this may have set in regard to how they decide to start using replay.

Further, they are taking way too much time to look at these plays. I haven't gone into the archives to check out the chatter on the Miami/Akron game...but that dwarfed last night in terms of poor use of the replay monitor.

I agree with you. Actually in this situation the extra time would have allowed a different scenario as far as an inbound pass or dribble shot. However, the officials did get it right.

[Camron Rust]

Jurrassic, I think you've missed this one.

The whistle definitely marks the point where the ball becomes dead. There is NO question about that. The fact that the clock didn't start properly has no bearing on how and when the ball becomes dead.

If (and I say IF) the official blew the wistle for an OOB violation when the ball bounced, then the time correction should have been between the time of the touch to the time of the whistle.

Sure, the whistle was wrong if the ball didn't actually bounce OOB, but that is done and you can't unblow the whistle.

Given how much time they did take off, they counted from the touch the the time the ball really did touch OOB. If the official did blow the whistle for the bounce, they got it wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by NathanRT

I don't know if I'm missing something here, but I can't seem to see what the ball hitting the floor has to do with this...The clock wouldn't start until the ball is touched, right? I only had a chance to see one replay and didn't see a way it could have been touched until the Memphis player touched it right before it went out. But like I said, I could be missing something here...

The ball was touched just before the ball hit the floor. Therefore, the clock should have started and run for some small amount. The clock didn't run at all so there had to be a correction.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Jurrassic, I think you've missed this one.

The whistle definitely marks the point where the ball becomes dead. There is NO question about that. The fact that the clock didn't start properly has no bearing on how and when the ball becomes dead.

If (and I say IF) the official blew the wistle for an OOB violation when the ball bounced, then the time correction should have been between the time of the touch to the time of the whistle.

Sure, the whistle was wrong if the ball didn't actually bounce OOB, but that is done and you can't unblow the whistle.

Now, why did it take me 1,000 words to say the same thing?!?!?!

I agree with Camron's post completely.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The whistle definitely marks the point where the ball becomes dead. There is NO question about that. The fact that the clock didn't start properly has no bearing on how and when the ball becomes dead.

If (and I say IF) the official blew the wistle for an OOB violation when the ball bounced, then the time correction should have been between the time of the touch to the time of the whistle.

Sure, the whistle was wrong if the ball didn't actually bounce OOB, but that is done and you can't unblow the whistle.

Given how much time they did take off, they counted from the touch the the time the ball really did touch OOB. If the official did blow the whistle for the bounce, they got it wrong.

So, you're basically saying that there was an IW, correct? How do you rule the play then for an IW on a live, loose ball?Is it the same call if A&M had been the last to touch the ball in-bounds before the whistle and the ball subsequently hitting OOB? Throw-in by A&M....ball tipped on the court by A&M and is going OOB....IW during a live loose ball....ball lands OOB. You're gonna give the ball back to A&M, even though they touched the ball last in-bounds?

Answer me that, guys, if you're so convinced that you're right. Are you going to the POI for an IW after taking time off the clock?

[Kajun Ref N Texas]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

So, you're basically saying that there was an IW, correct? How do you rule the play then for an IW on a live, loose ball?Is it the same call if A&M had been the last to touch the ball in-bounds before the whistle and the ball subsequently hitting OOB? Throw-in by A&M....ball tipped on the court by A&M and is going OOB....IW during a live loose ball....ball lands OOB. You're gonna give the ball back to A&M, even though they touched the ball last in-bounds?

Answer me that, guys, if you're so convinced that you're right. Are you going to the POI for an IW after taking time off the clock?

This is just a situation where you set aside a rule to do the right thing.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Kajun Ref N Texas

This is just a situation where you set aside a rule to do the right thing.

There is no situation that you set aside the rule to "do the right thing". NCAA Rule 2.2.2 specifically says, "No official has the authority to set aside any official rules or approved interpretations." Once we open the door to setting aside rules in order to do the right thing, we might as well throw out the rule book and just call whatever we want.

This is what my problem is with the whole situation. As I've been trying to point out all along, and Cameron said much better than I have, if a whistle was blown to signal OOB then the time interval that should have elapsed by rule is from the touching to whistle. By rule this is what should happen; what is right according to had things gone perfectly is another thing, and that is what the officials were trying to accomplish. However, unless we are going to start ignoring 2.2.2. we can't set aside rules as I believe they did. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing had I been in their position. In going through all that happened and all the rules/interps I'm sure they were going through in a span of 5-10 minutes, I'm sure it would be easy to overlook Rule 5.9.1c. I spent almost 30 minutes looking for it in the comfort of my own home, I'd hate to think of what I'd have come up with in 10 minutes with thousands of screaming fans yelling at me.