Nova vs Georgetown
 

Anyone see the end to this game?

Tie score. Refs called a foul against Nova w/ 0.1 seconds on the clock....and who went to the line? The best foul shooter in the HISTORY of Georgetown mens basketball - Wallace. Sinks two. Game over......the announcers were inconsolable......

For those that saw this game. What did you think of the last call?? I thought it was a foul (look at the legs). But do you call something like that with 0.1 seconds on the clock. I am not a ref, but the players from both sides were upset all night.

Didn't have a great look from the views provided but Wallace could have been driven out of bounds by Stokes with that little sliding hip check. IF that's the case, you have to make that call.

With little time left, why even come close to fouling the best FT shooter in the HISTORY of Georgetown's mens basketball? Make him shoot the 70 footer. Dumb foul.

And is it me or is Bilas starting to be dumber than Billy Packer?

It was a dumb, dumb, dumb play defensively...though I'd guess he wasn't sure where exactly the clock was. If there's 3.1 left he just saved a layup.

I thought the call was a good one because it appeared to force Wallace OB. I was in the gym watching on a 15" TV, though, so I'm not sure. To me, it's a pure A/D call and if he steps out due to the contact, you call it, if not it's time to get ready for OT.

I just saw the replay on ESPNEWS, and they had an angle from the opposite baseline that seemed to show he was forced out of bounds, which prompted the foul call. It was a pretty frenzied final 10 seconds.

Dumber would be going to far. Approaching the same stratosphere of dumbness - yes.

It's obvious neither announcer understood or acknowledged that the contact - while not "heavy" - forced the Georgetown player OB. That was the critical piece of information in the entire play.

Looked like a foul to me.

I suspect if it had been a few feet further in bounds, Cahill is a little slower on the whistle, but once the GT player stepped on the line, what can he do?

Give the ball to Villanova near the GT basket?

:d

I saw the play as a replay, but it clearly looked like he was pushed out of bounds and either you have a foul or an out of bounds play. Clearly a foul and that was a dumb play by Nova players.

Peace

Looks like he did kinda bump him. But I don't know if I would have called it. Tough one.

In the context of the entire game, this was not a good call.

I actually like Bilas and have always thought he is the most knowledgable about officiating.

His best comments during this post-game were pointing out that:

1) the contact when Nova was driving for the winning basket was more severe than the last foul.

2) when 75 feet from the bucket and less than a couple seconds left, the contact has no advantage

3) if you can ignore the foul, you can ignore the toe (EDGING) the line and let's go to overtime

I'd bet my left nut that if you asked that official if he liked that call, he'd say no.

yah. foul maybe but let it go. the ending of the Indiana game where the guy clearly was fouled shooting a 70 footer was a good no call. This should not have been called. If a ref blows a foul then why not waive it off and say inadvertent whistle? instead now a questionable call decides the game.

You cannot make that in inadvertent whistle. The ball handler was pushed out of bounds. The defender put the official in that situation to make that call, not the other way around. There was clearly displacement (which Hank Nichols goes on and on about in the bulletins) that caused the ball handler to get out of bounds. I think we have to get away with the idea that we cannot decide the game. I agree if there is some minor contact you might not be so quick to call a foul. But if the defender backed off and did not bump the ball handler out of bounds, maybe the official would have passed.

Peace

To me, obvious foul, clear displacement. Also the fact that 0.1 is on the clock is irrelevant because while the official might have a good idea of the time, he cannot possibly be that precise and a difference of even a second on this type of play is huge. In that spot, the official has to make the call, good call, horrible defense.

I have no good idea on #1.

#2 really only applies if the ref knows exactly how much time is on the clock.

#3 is where Bilas slides into BS territory. A foul involves judgement. If video of a toe on the line gets sent to the conference office, the official is going to have to explain himself.

I looked at the replay; was Wallace ever really out of bounds or just close?

I'm with you on this one....The contact clearly impeaded the offensive players progress....

To me, time has no relevance in on a foul...Now one poster stated it was a bad foul in the whole context of the game? I didn't see the whole game but to me, that would have been a foul in the first minute of the game just as it was whistled in the final seconds.

What's with the statement that it was "The best FT shooter in the history of G-Town basketball"....What the HELL does that have to do with why you would or would not make this call? That has no relevance in this conversation :confused:

Stoopid statement. One is a judgment call; the other one isn't. It's that simple.

After looking at the replay from the vantage point of the official, I think it's just one of those times when the circumstances create a bad situation. It's an easy no call if Wallace doesn't go out of bounds. But, if you see the replay, the fist goes up right after the foot hit the line. It's actually a good case of a patient whistle, but I think the official was put in a box by the player going out of bounds.

I agree with Bilas up until his "ignore" the out of bounds comment. You just can't do that, and that is why this play stinks all the way around. Maybe the best choice was to pass on the foul and call Georgetown OOB. At least that wouldn't have put anyone on the line. Tough spot...

So, ignore the illegal contact and give the ball back to Nova? That's just not acceptable, IMO.

The real problem here is that there was .1 left. If there had been 2.1, then there's a ton less controversy. You can't give Nova the ball back with 2.1 on the clock. And, the crying would have been much less with 2.1 because Nova would have had a chance to get the ball down and get a shot off.

But, the official has no way of knowing exactly how much time is left. He's got to call the play, and while I'm sure he'd rather not have had to call that, it was the right call based on the play...

That pretty much sums it up right there imo.

Good foul call. How about the walk at the end of the 1st Half?
 

Good foul call. My 1st reaction was bad call. Defender contact forced player out of bounds. No choice but to call the foul.

Anyone see the NOVA layup with about 10 seconds left in the half. Picks up dribble, takes 3 steps, No call?

Didn't see it, just read about it...

Can picture it...

Got to call the foul, Big Brother is always watching and Big Brother might say no foul call is okay, but Big Brother gets a good look in high definition at the line...Takes guts, the kind of guts that gets you on that floor that night.

I can say I've been forced into certain calls by player's actions and I really "hate" to make that call because it does "decide" the game, but the player's actions dictated it.

Well said!!! Its funny how we as officials are being critical, @ times, of officials who have to make a call @ the end of the game. The official didn't cause the contact. The player should've realized where they were @ in the game and make sure not to foul.

You can't ignore contact that causes a loss of possession. Its a foul, the official didn't cause the foul. His whistle is a result of the Nova's player's stupidity!!! The player goofed not the official.

If Jay Bilas is such a expert on what, when, & how to call the game then he should put on the stripes, strap on a whistle, & blow!!! That guy is a horses Azz. Its to easy for him to pin the mistake on the official and not the player.

The same holds true for the Rutgers/Tennessee game. Were busy trying to prove that the officials "ROBBED" Rutgers when it was the Rutgers player who put the officials in the position to have to make the call in the first place.

Bad Call, regardless of situation. Not that technically this wasn't a foul, because by definition, it definitely was a foul. The way this game was called throughout merits a no call in this situation. People were killing each other the whole game, and it was getting let go. Hell, they weren't even calling kicks in this game. But if that official really thought that was a foul, then Georgetown committed murder on Scottie Reynolds right before he turned it over with 5.whatever left.

I heard this morning that they called 40 fouls in that game. So they were hardly letting everything pass.

And if you watch Reynolds drive to the basket, he actually got away with a HUGE push off when he started his drive. The contact after that on the drive to the hoop was not nearly as severe as I originally thought...

Explain, Viper, how you justify giving the ball back to Nova on the OB call you'd have to make if you didn't call the foul.

This is exactly the crux of the matter. If the contact causes a violation or OOB, you have no choice but to call it. If he gives the ball to Nova there (which he would have to if no foul), sure there's only .1 on the clock and we're going to overtime right? Unless of course they throw the perfect lob pass on the inbounds (which is in the FC by the way) and get the winning tap. Or unless there is a foul on the winning tap attempt. Or unless there is a hold on a player trying to get free for the pass. Or unless there is a foul for pushing through a screen. ANYTHING can happen once they give the ball to Nova there. You simply can't do it, regardless of the time.

Real simple, the official had two choices.

1. Call the foul
2. Call out of bounds

no way you can let both of those go. He did the rite thing!

this play put Bob Donato in a tough situation...looked like he wanted to pass on call, but had to put air in the whistle when the Hoya player was headed out of bounds.....

IMHO, the Precision Timing System is a MAJOR factor in this play that has been overlooked. Because PTS causes the clock to stop the instant a whistle is blown, the clock stopped w/ 0:00.1. If there were no PTS, then the horn would have sounded and the officials could have waved off the foul (saying it occored at/after the buzzer) and gone to OT....just a little "food for thought".

At the risk of being a Bilas apologist, I think out of all the analysts and columnists, he has always exhibited the most understanding of officials and our craft, even defending them at times against the consipracy theorists (read: whiners). What I like about him is he gives me (as an official) a coach's and player's perspective having been there himself, and he doesn't scapegoat.

His point is often that officials (and questionable calls) are part of the game and always have been. In this technological age of triple slo-mo reverse angle replay, mistakes are more public and the media (youtube, too) further perpetuates the public's low tolerance for less than perfect officiating. Coaches and players who blame refs on last second calls or no-calls need to get over it and look at how their teams performance in the previous 39 minutes of play determined the outcome. (still trying to find that article he wrote on ESPN.com a few years ago)

What I heard him say in the post-game is consistent with what my supervisors and other veteran officials in my area would say. Game awareness of the score (tied) and situation (75 feet from hoop) is tantamount and this is a perfect example of why.

Bilas says that for a veteran crew, they should know better, and I agree.

Rafferty said (paraphrasing) "a foul at the beginning of the game should be a foul at the end of the game, right?"

Bilas: "not for the good officials".

Color guy: "looks like because he stepped OOB he felt he needed to make the call"

Bilas: "you can rationalize it however you want, but for the game to have been decided that way is unfortunate."

This is what I took away from it....and what I will apply to my game. The debate of whether this is a foul or not (or OOB or not) in the context of this single play is missing the big picture.

If your supervisors and other veteran officials in your area think that an OOB call can be ignored at <b>ANY</b> time during a game, then your supervisors and veteran officials need to give up officiating and take up broadcasting. OOB calls <b>MUST</b> be called at at <b>ALL</b> times.

Our avocation doesn't need supervisors and veteran officials like yours imo.

Big Picture? Not freaking likely!

Terrible, terrible advice.

See..this is what I love about this board. In your area, JR ("hell" according to your profile), there are no grey areas, and thus no reason to debate the call (or non-call).

In my neck of the woods, it's very different. And not because of my two cents. Because it's the commissioners that oversee the schools, then hire my supervisors, who then hire(d) our vets, who retain them and reward them with schedules and playoff assignments (with coaches input) who create and perpetute the culture and philosophy of having "common sense" in tough situations.

The context that this discussion is rooted in is 0.1 seconds and a tie game!!! If you don't see that as relevant info, then read no further.

I can appreciate about OOB not being a judgement call. But if you saw the play, it wasn't even obvious that the player stepped on the line. Even when they froze the replay and zoomed in, it wasn't clear. That's why i used the term EDGED.

I'm not a D1 men's official, but I know enough of them to know that at that level, they "apply" the rules and philosophies very differently than I do. Yes, I realize that sometimes the rest of us commoners become collateral damage because of it, but it's mostly outcry from ignorant fans or bystanders.

I'm not here to give advice, just share my perspective. There's enough opinions for everyone to take what works for them.

Until the day when you take Hank Nichols' job JR, my supervisors and colleagues will still have a job while you may continue to criticize us on how we don't deserve to wear the stripes.

Like someone else's tag says "it is what it is".

I would only say, pizanno, that the official had a better view of the boundary than any replay did, and that the official also couldn't have known there'd be 0.1 on the clock. He probably knew they were getting down to the last second or so, but there was too much action and too much scrambling in that last 4-6 seconds to know for sure.

Would it have "felt" different if there were 1.1 left instead? I say it would have to most observers.

The point is that you're agreeing with Bilas that OOB calls should be ignored under certain circumstances. I commented on what you stated---> <i>"The debate of whether this is a foul or not <b>(OR OOB OR NOT)</b> in the context of this single play is missing the big picture."</i> Well, imo the biggest part of the "big picture" is whether the player actually stepped OOB or not. If he did, then something <b>MUST</b> be called imo, whether it's an OOB violation or a foul for pushing the player OOB. If the player didn't go OOB, then we all can argue all day whether a foul should or should not have been called and it's all moot anyway.

The funny thing though is that I haven't seen Hank Nichols, your supervisors or any of your veteran colleagues come on here and agree with your <b>opinion</b>. The oldest trick in the world is to say I'm right because all if these experts agree with me, without providing any proof that any of those experts actually <b>do</b> agree with you. Personally, I doubt very much that you could ever get Hank Nichols or any D1 supervisor to state that an OOB call could ever be a judgment call under any circumstances. That's my opinion. And until I actually see Hank Nichols, D1 supervisors and veteran D1 officials tell me that I'm wrong, I'm going to stick to my <b>opinion</b>.

We disagree.

Interesting column about the play
 

At a Duke site of all places. Absolutely rips the crew. The announcing crew.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=24374

Point taken about agreeing with Bilas' statement. Although again, it needs context. I don't think I'm advocating that OOB calls should be ignored.

Let me put it this way:

* Have you ever "saved a foul"? Isn't that ignoring a OOB call (on top of nonfoul call)?

* Have you ever "overlooked" A1 with a toe over the endline while inbounding the ball in the backcourt to A2 while all other 8 players are in the forecourt?

* Have you ever "ignored" the coach clearly standing out of his/her box during live ball who is merely coaching?

* When two players foul an opponent at the same time, have you ever called a mulitple foul and penalized each defender with a foul, or just picked one player?

While we may disagree on the GEO/NOVA sitch, I was trying to raise the merits to the "common sense" perspective in response to the "it's a rule, so you have to call it" argument.

Of course, none of my supes or vets will agree with me here...mostly because they say only losers spend their days arguing in cyberspace and they wouldn't be caught dead publicizing their opinions in any forum, let alone a discussion board.

I'm not using the "it's a rule so you have to call it" argument. Officiating would be a heckuva lot easier if we could make it that simple, but unfortunately the game doesn't work that way. That's what makes basketball such a difficult game to officiate imo. Some rules have to be called <b>all</b> of the time without any possible "common sense" criteria attached to it.. Stepping OOB is one of those. Backcourt violations are another. Some rules may be applied strictly as written <b>some</b> of the time. Examples might be 3 seconds, 10 seconds for a FT shooter, etc. And these "some of the time" circumstances might also vary depending on different situations also.

I don't know whether that makes any sense to you or not, but that's my take on what happened. Stepping OOB is a gotta-get call. If(and the key word is "if") the player stepped on the line, then some kind of call <b>had</b> to be made.

Again, jmo.

Well gosh darn...i completely agree with you. Good night everyone, drive safe! :D

Let me tell you what I had Friday night.

Granted, it happened in the 3rd quarter, and in a 10 point ball game, but it's eerily similar to what is being discussed here. I am administering the throw-in on the baseline. Blue is throwing the ball in. A1 throws to A2, right in front of A's bench. A2 receives the pass and is lightly bumped by B1, but it causes A2 to lose his balance and step out of bounds. My partner, a first year V official, at trail starts to give the ball back to blue for an inbounds play. Of course, B is saying that it should be there ball. I get together with my partner and tell him that we have one of 2 things that have to happen. Either white gets the ball, due to the OOB violation, or he has to call a foul against B1. Although this didn't come up in the discussion, at this point I don't think he knew who he would have called the foul on, and neither did I. We ended up giving the ball to B. Coach A didn't say much about it. After all, he had a 10 point lead at the time. And they ended up winning by 6.

Rant on
 

In every place I've ever worked, "grey areas" don't apply to out of bounds plays or situations, in any of the three sports I work, at any of the levels I work at. I'm going to go ahead and sit on my hands here at my desk and not move until any supervisor or assignor (with any credibility) says that an OB violation should simply be ignored in that, or any situation. I'll see you all in the morning. I'll just be here, sitting on my hands - because that will never happen.

If there are officials who don't agree with how this call was made, it's fine, in theory, (despite they're making everyone else's jobs harder) because those officials aren't ever going to work at that level (what JRut said about the video updates on ESO is dead-on - and you could probably find at least one from about every year in the archives on both the men's and women's side that addresses these types of plays, and how they want them called fouls) - or if they do, and blow this call, they'll be done working at that level (or at least in that conference).

Poor defense. Good call. Rant off.

Comments From Big East
 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3242789

"There is no force-out rule and if [Wallace] was forced out, he either was bumped for a foul or he stepped out of bounds," Hyland said.

"When a kid is bumped and goes out of bounds, you have to make a call. It's a judgment call."


Hyland said the timing of the foul does not matter.
"A foul is a foul," Hyland said. "It's a judgment situation."

Pti
 

I love those guys and the show, but come on...the player was bumped enough to cause him to go out of bounds. As Bilas said, it is unfortunate that the game had to end that way. However, you don't call the foul then the other alternative is the GU player OOB. Villanova then gets the ball with a chance to win. The call in the Tenn/Rutgers game was the one everyone should be up in arms about.

I have no idea whether I could ever agree with what the author was eventually going to say. I gave up trying to read it after the first few sentences. What a pretentious little prick.

Typical Dookie.:D

Well, it's likely you have one remaining. Which is good unless you want to be Frankie Valli's understudy.

I forced myself. Pretentious is right. Why write clearly when trying to sound intelligent and witty is so much more fun (for the writer)? He is much clearer in these paragraphs, though, and is right on the money:

Those observations I agree with. I just couldn't get through the pretentious little prick's preamble to actually read them. :) Got no time for writers that feel the need to use several paragraphs to show everybody how much smarter they are than their readers before they get to what they want to say.

I'm in this camp. Tough a$$ play here but if you are an advantage / disadvantage official, I think you side in on foul once your brain tells you the contact caused the OOB.

Back to the Tenn Rutgers thread - while he knows there's probably under 10 left here - he has no idea he's under 1

Absolutely!

I just watched the play on YouTube. Are you people kidding me? Barely a foul? Only because he touched the OOB line?

The contact was significant enough to knock the dribbler off his path, cause him to lose his balance, force him to pick up his dribble, and if he hadn't stepped on the line he would have traveled just trying to stay on his feet.

This is a foul at any time in any game.

Ok - a thought.

In that game, they had anywhere from 4 - 8 cameras shooting in high def. They had the ability AFTER the fact to see that play in high def with all the video tools ESPN has to offer.

Lets take this play and put it in a high school environment in a rivalry game. We wont have that luxury at that level and will have to live and die with a call like this. What you hope is that one of the two cameras have a good look at this play so that you have something to stand on after the fact with the coaches / assignor unless you are a very tenured and respected guy in that league (I realize not all leagues are coaches leagues).

More than likely, after the game, would a blurry DVD shot from your basic home edition sony cam corder support this call? Do we care?

Do factors like this lead people to pass in high school and let it go OT?

Be honest - If you had this play in your biggest rivalry game under similar circumstances (under 2 or 3 seconds), do you take the foul or pass?

It only makes it that much easier to make this call if you aren't going to have 8 different HD camera angles to dissect the call. The defensive player created contact, that contact displaced the ball handler and forced him OB, this created a distinct advantage for the defender, so you have to make the call.

That's all you have to tell anyone who questions you after this call, and nobody is going to be able to produce video evidence to the contrary in most HS games - especially if you simply tell your assignor what you saw and why you called it.

FOUL!!! Affected speed, timing, rhythm, & balance. FOUL!! In any game! IMO

I think that your supervisors and colleagues are very lucky that Hank Nichols isn't their boss. :D

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...nova_call.html

It is what it is.

Of course I call the foul! Absolutely! Every time!

(Unless I was actually there, then I would like to think I would call it. Unless I pass on it because it's so far away from the basket, and so close to time expiring...)

That's a hard question to answer, because I don't think any of us really know until we're actually put in that spot. Plus, there are so many other factors that might creep in, having worked the whole game up to that moment. Would I be thinking that I passed on some obvious fouls before this that I should've gotten, so I better get this one? Or, am I thinking I called some ticky-tack stuff earlier, so this one better be obvious? Have I been running my a$$ off all game, so am I mentally tired at this moment?

If someone asked me if I would run into a burning building to save someone, I know I would say yes (now). But I wouldn't know for sure until I was actually standing next to that burning building. I would like to think I'll make the right choice.

Do you take all that into consideration when making your calls? I don't. I can't think that fast. I have trained myself to make calls without thinking about the consequences, and I have done well with that philosophy so far.

Is it even possible, in your mind, that the writer of the column wasn't trying to "prove how much smarter" he/she is than any of the readers, but instead was trying to give an introduction to some important ideas related to the coverage of the play?

It's beyond clear that the quality of the introduction is questionable, but the ideas in the beginning of the column certainly seemed relevant to the story as the writer tried to tell it.

I'll go out on a limb here and say it was poorly written. Pompous, pretentious, rambling come to mind regarding the 'intro'. I went back and skipped the first 1000 words and it was still overwritten. More is not better.

He might have good points buried somewhere in the fluff.

Glad Hank spoke up. Donato's a great official and everyone should be backing him, including us - publicly. I think that courage to make the call is the right message to send.

However, I'd love to have been a fly on the wall in that post-game.

This is Big East mens bball. Not sure you could apply that universally to all contact at the D1 level for fouls on the dribbler.

I'll give you two out of the four on this play. If you watch the replay at regular speed, you'll see that the dribbler actually got around Stokes and continued his dribble upcourt (whether he stepped OOB or not).

Not that I expect anyone to change their opinion whether this was a foul or not. It's just not as cut and dried as most seem to want to make it.

So I ask again, pizanno, would you have called the OB violation and given the ball back to Nova?

Look, I don't know what your issue is and I don't care but this IS very cut & dried:

1. the call was made
2. the call was backed up publicly by the league

You think that maybe this should have been let go? Fine. And you even got further and say if he had been pushed OOB both the foul & the OOB should have both been ignored. Whatever, good luck with that. You can continue to defend yourself, that's your right. As far as I'm concerned it was a good foul call at any point of the game. Apparently the league agrees.

And why would you want to be in that post-game? Because you think the league and Hank and all of us are just covering for a bad call and that his crew would have ripped him a new one in post-game and that if you had been there you might, might, might finally have one shred of confirmation from somebody that your opinion of this is right?

Tell you what, go to the Jay Bilas chat forum if you want to cry about how your team got screwed by a corrupt/incompetent/conspiratorial/whatever-it-is-you-want-to-believe referee.

You obviously are not interested in unbiased, objective, and informed discussion. Unless, of course, it all goes your way.

Go away, troll.

In my mind, the author of the story was just another pretentious prick. His preamble was ample proof of that. Hopefully, he'll grow out of it. Being a Dookie though, the odds are against it.:D

Okay...

the reason i'd want to be in that post-game is to get the unbiased, objective, and informed discussion from Donato himself...and of course to learn from the situation...isn't that why we're here?

I've been in post-games with some pretty darn good officials who have made some pretty high-profile controversial calls and said "you know, i really wish I didn't make that call...and will tell the coach and supervisor that."...and have even seen the supervisors (and even the coach) do exactly what you think is a cover-up: diplomatically state in the media that the call was the right call and/or didn't affect the outcome of the game.

Now if I ever get a chance to hear from Donato himself that that was the right call to make and he's happy with it, then great...i've learned something new today.

Everyone else's opinion (including mine) is an uninformed, biased and subjective opinion.

Nope. Pizanno is definitely not a troll. From his posts, imo he's a knowledgeable official.

One disagreement does not make a troll. I may not agree with him on this particular situation but I still respect his right to have his own opinion.

Okay, perhaps it's because it's near the end of the season, and maybe I anticipated a troll and made the wrong call? :D

Well, if his comments were OOB, you either have to call him on that, or call him a troll. You can't let both go, right? ;)

He's also an official:" The Play Caller is a nine-year high school and college basketball official who happens to be a Duke fan."

OK. We'll alter it. He's a nine-year high school and college basketball official who is also a Dookie fan as well as being a pompous, pretentious prick.

That better?

HAHAHA! Nice one M&M! :p

The Media, Can't Live with Them, Can't Live Without Them
 

From our Hartford, CT, morning, drive-time, sports announcer. This is his daily "Sports Commentary". Normally I almost always agree with him, however I didn't like the tone of today's commentary:

http://www.wtic.com/topic/play_windo...udioId=1460289

Wednesday, February 13th 2008 - Sports Commentary
"I've always been a proponent of the human element in the officiating of sports events. The fallibility of the umpire in baseball has been one of the enduring charms of the game. Larry Barnett and Don Denkinger have provided as much fuel for the hot stoves as anyone who ever played the game. Nothing shortens winters more than a raging controversy. Unfortunately, in most sports, those days are forever behind us. Sports have long since moved into the electronic age and technology has replaced the human eye and human instinct in determining the minutest points of arbitration. The primary directive with the electronic surveillance of sporting events should be simply, "Get it right". If slow motion replay analysis of every action on the court or on the field or on the ice is going to be the determining factor there is no excuse for getting the call wrong. All parties have distanced themselves from responsibility for the nearly second and a half pause on the game clock at the end of the Tennessee women's basketball win over Rutgers monday night. The president of the company that produces the precision game clocks says there is room for human error in the operation of the timepiece, but the clock itself is infallible. Only the on court officials are supposed to have the ability to stop the clock once play is underway. Responsibility for causing the clock to pause at the end of the game, holding two tenths of a second on the board long enough for a Tennessee player to be fouled with time remaining isn't the issue here. The responsibility of the referees is clear. They did review a replay to determine if there was time left. That was the only decision they made based on the review, despite the fact the replay clearly showed the clock paused while the ball was still in the air on the rebound after a missed shot. In another game on the same night, the men's game between Georgetown and Villanova, with the clock running down, less than a second left with a Georgetown player tightroping the sideline at the far end of the court from his offensive basket, one of the officials chose to whistle a foul on a Villanova player, who was leaning away from the offensive player, hands extended over his head in an obvious attempt to avoid a foul. One tenth of a second left in a tied game. It's hard to watch the way college basketball games are officiated on a nightly basis and buy the argument from officials that the game is forty minutes long, not thirty nine minutes, fifty nine and nine tenths seconds, and every foul should be called the same. On a nightly basis they give themselves little evidence to back that philosophy. Their's is a position of judicious arbitration. The spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. If modern technology is going to provide the final determination the call must be right. If the deciding factor is common sense, then common sense must be the deciding factor. In both cases on the same night the outcome was determined by the wrong call. It was a bad day for modern officiating. With a comment from the sports world, I'm Scott Gray."

I wish that he had consulted an NCAA official before he wrote this commentary. The Rutgers Tennessee situation was really weird, but I believe that the Villanova Georgetown situtaiton was very clear. The blocking foul by the Villanova player put the Georgetown player at a disadvantage, causing him to go out of bounds. I would call this in the first second of a game, or the last second of a game. If the fact that the Georgetown player was 80 feet away from his basket with less than one second left in the game is important, as the announcer states, than why was the Villanova player anywhere near the Georgetown player?

Sounds like you found exactly what you were looking for in the piece. Funny. A perfect example of the confirmation bias he wrote about.

I found what I was looking for in the very first paragraph......another typical Dookie. That's why I quit reading.:D

JB, don't pay the old fossil any mind. Back in the 1500s none of the commoners went to university, he's just frustrated he could only read 20% of the words. I wouldn't expect JR to keep up with a university-educated writer.

There, there. (pats little JR on the head)


:D

Aw geeze, another Dookie (or Dookie wannabe) shows up. :rolleyes:

We should have a rule here. Only one Dookie allowed per forum.

Right after we institute the one that reads only one cantankerous, parochial old fart per forum.

Who else posts here that fits that description to a T other than <i>moi</i>?

I'm safe.:D

Are you sure?
 

If the foul is not called, would the clock have run out before the out of bounds?
Just wondering....
And I'm not saying anything about judgment on the play.

No. The player's foot stepping out of bounds happened just before the whistle was blown, so there's no way time would have expired.

That's why you need to work on a patient whistle.

However, if you have a patient whistle on the play, and the whistle blows after the horn for an out of bounds call, by rule I don't think that's reviewable or correctable.

Maybe, but can you really say you're that aware of the clock that you know it's about to run out?