Tennessee--Rutgers ending--Women's Game

[M&M Guy]

Well, considering it's smack dab in the middle of the political season, I feel the need to agree with both BITS and JRut.

Jeff, you absolutely correct about being aware of the clock starting and stopping. It has helped me out in both camps and during games. It lends a certain amount of credibility to the crew if they can correct a clock or shot-clock issue, because it shows players and coaches that the crew is actively involved in all aspects of the game.

That said, I agree with BITS in this particular situation. There's no way I'm so focused on the clock to be aware if it stops or pauses during a live ball play. If I'm off ball, I'm looking at the clock when the ball is put in play to see if it's started properly, and I'm looking at it when I hear a whistle to see when it stops (or should be stopped). If I'm C, looking for the last shot, I'm watching the player with the ball and the LED's, along with listening for the horn. But I am not looking at the numbers to see if they somehow stop while scrolling down to 0.00. If that's the case, I would never see if the shot has left the hand, or if a player gets pulled down during the action.

I feel bad for the crew, as it appears they did things by the book at the end. Perhaps they were so focused on looking at the foul on the monitor, that even with the replays, they may not have caught the clock pause at 00.2. I didn't catch it right away until the announcers brought it up after the third or fourth replay. In the heat of the moment, in the middle of the arena, with everything at stake, knowing that everyone wants a decision right away, I'm not sure I would catch that one either. I would like to think I could, but I didn't while sitting in my recliner.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Were any of these mistakes where the clock was running, stopped without a whistle then started again? I doubt it very seriously. I can understand making sure the clock stops on a whistle and starts on the touch, these are the mistakes that we should be catching.

Two or three of the situations the clock did not start at all during a throw-in and I blew my whistle to make sure the clock was set to the proper time after I play had clearly started. The other situations a whistle was blown and the clock did not stop. One of the situations I did not blow the whistle and I was the only one that caught the clock not stopping properly and I had to put time on the clock.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Again we should be checking to make sure it stops on a whistle and starts on a touch &/or possession. Why would you be looking @ the clock while it was running? Other then in shot clock games where we take a look @ the game clock to get the change of possession time. In this play the shot clock was off!!

If this is too hard for you to wrap your mind around, then so be it. I am not telling you what to do or what to think. But this situation we are discussing has been discussed on every ESPN show you can think of. Obviously this will likely be addressed by the conference or supervisor even if we do not find out about it. I know in lesser publicized situations there were media releases. If you do not want to accept the reality of all this attention, keep doing what you are doing and I hope that no one throws you under the bus based on tape evidence in any of your games.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Wow, my first endorsement of the political season

[M&M Guy]

Don't forget to step on all us little people as you climb your way to the top.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Two or three of the situations the clock did not start at all during a throw-in and I blew my whistle to make sure the clock was set to the proper time after I play had clearly started. The other situations a whistle was blown and the clock did not stop. One of the situations I did not blow the whistle and I was the only one that caught the clock not stopping properly and I had to put time on the clock.

Good catches!!! My point is that the clock wasn't running then stopped with out whistle then started again. These aren't catches while the clock was running and just stopped for no reason & restarted.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If this is too hard for you to wrap your mind around, then so be it. I am not telling you what to do or what to think. But this situation we are discussing has been discussed on every ESPN show you can think of. Obviously this will likely be addressed by the conference or supervisor even if we do not find out about it. I know in lesser publicized situations there were media releases. If you do not want to accept the reality of all this attention, keep doing what you are doing and I hope that no one throws you under the bus based on tape evidence in any of your games.

Not hard @ all for me. It sounds like you advocating watching the clock while its running? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. So just to clarify..Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying to look @ the clock on a whistle or after dead ball when the clock should start?

My point is that there is no reason and I mean no reason for nobody on the crew to look @ the clock while it is running just to make sure is doesn't malfunction, on a whistle..sure, on a touch..sure, but not while its running.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

My point is that there is no reason and I mean no reason for nobody on the crew to look @ the clock while it is running just to make sure is doesn't malfunction, on a whistle..sure, on a touch..sure, but not while its running.

I wouldn't go that far. I look at the clock a lot while it's running during a game. I'm just not sure why I would look at it in the sitch we're discussing.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Don't forget to step on all us little people as you climb your way to the top.

Chuck posting somewhere in this thread?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I wouldn't go that far. I look at the clock a lot while it's running during a game. I'm just not sure why I would look at it in the sitch we're discussing.

Agree.

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Chuck posting somewhere in this thread?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

After looking at that play I'm thinking that as T I'm going to step down to watch the 10 bodies in the paint. Would it be good to be aware that the clock is still moving once it properly starts? Yes. Is it what I'm going to focus on in this sequence. Not likely. Do I think I would be aware enough to notice it stopped moving for the length of time it did? I like to think so.

Tough sitch all around.

The original shot was in the T's primary! Why would I cede a rebounding foul to the L to watch the clock?

[Jurassic Referee]

Can I say something?

T'hell with ya, I'm gonna say it anyway.

From today's NY Times....."A Tennessee official said after the game that the scoreboard clock was controlled by a remote wireless device that the referees wear on their belts, and that it was NOT controlled by anyone at the scorers table."

That kinda puts a different slant on it, doesn't it?

If it's in the Times, it must be true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/sp...tml?ref=sports

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Not hard @ all for me. It sounds like you advocating watching the clock while its running? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. So just to clarify..Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying to look @ the clock on a whistle or after dead ball when the clock should start?

Yes, I can watch the clock several times while the game is going on. When I have nothing else going on and we are near the end of the game, I am going to take a look at that clock. Yes, I have done this for years and have kept myself out of many problems.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

My point is that there is no reason and I mean no reason for nobody on the crew to look @ the clock while it is running just to make sure is doesn't malfunction, on a whistle..sure, on a touch..sure, but not while its running.

And I disagree with your point. And I have been taught by officials that work the very level we are discussing to disagree with your point. I guess we are just going to have to disagree right?

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That kinda puts a different slant on it, doesn't it?

If it's in the Times, it must be true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/sp...tml?ref=sports

It does not change anything for me. I am not aware that the basics of the PTS are that different from one place to another.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Can I say something?

No. Who asked you?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

T'hell with ya, I'm gonna say it anyway.

Figures. Oh, well.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From today's NY Times....."A Tennessee official said after the game that the scoreboard clock was controlled by a remote wireless device that the referees wear on their belts, and that it was NOT controlled by anyone at the scorers table."

That kinda puts a different slant on it, doesn't it?

I don't know enough about Precision Timing, but how does it start again once it's stopped? Wouldn't one of the officials have to reach around behind and flip the switch? Does that show anywhere on the video? Doesn't the table still have the opportunity to start and stop the clock on their own?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If it's in the Times, it must be true.

Don't they also pick the Yankees to win every year?

Just sayin'.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The original shot was in the T's primary! Why would I cede a rebounding foul to the L to watch the clock?

I'm not sure what your point is but the original shot came at 5+ seconds.

The badness all happened with 1 second and less on the clock with just about every player in the paint. IOW all eyes should have been focussed there.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Can I say something?

T'hell with ya, I'm gonna say it anyway.

From today's NY Times....."A Tennessee official said after the game that the scoreboard clock was controlled by a remote wireless device that the referees wear on their belts, and that it was NOT controlled by anyone at the scorers table."

That kinda puts a different slant on it, doesn't it?

If it's in the Times, it must be true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/sp...tml?ref=sports

It's been a couple of years since I investigated PTS, but my understanding is that it's always manually controllable from the clock console. The PTS units I've actually seen all plug into the clock console.

As for the article, what's this about? “I myself was watching the clock the whole time,” said Essence Carson, the Rutgers senior forward. “It’s just unbelievable how anyone can take that many shots in that amount of time and still have time left on the clock.”

If she was actually watching the clock the whole time, wouldn't her follow-on statement be that she witnessed the clock stop? Rather than speculation about how anybody could take that many shots in that amount of time? It's an emotional rant thinly disguised as some kind of eye-witness account.

[pizanno]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From today's NY Times....."A Tennessee official said after the game that the scoreboard clock was controlled by a remote wireless device that the referees wear on their belts, and that it was NOT controlled by anyone at the scorers table."

That kinda puts a different slant on it, doesn't it?

If it's in the Times, it must be true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/sp...tml?ref=sports

If it's the same PTS systems we use in the west, the game clock timer can absolutely can start and stop the clock. We always tell the table crew in the pregame that "the officials are your back-up" for starting AND stopping the clock. Keeps them engaged and on the job.