No, they have to be provocative and controversial.

They never pick the Yankees first. They always make picks like Hillary, AQ in Iraq and the Cubs (see the pattern yet?)

Anyway, they don't care about being right, they just need the attention.

It's only a matter of time before someone asks what do you expect from a Rutgers student... so I'll get it out of the way now.

Why are you hatin' on all your friends in Bayonne?

We agree, I think. Once the original shot went up, if I'm the trail, I'm stepping down and officiating rebounding action near the ball. As should all of them.

I like how the Rutgers player was watching the clock. R-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght. Anyone claiming they were not watching the action is not telling the truth.

Each official has a little radio box on their hip which is attached to a mini microphone on a lanyard. You can only use a Fox 40 whistle (or at least that is all you could use) and every time an official blows the whistle, the clock should stop. The little box also has a button on the device so you can start the clock. And there is a device at the scorer's table that is connected to the devices on the official's hip. The timer has the same device or buttons they have on any other timing device. And they have to stop the clock for under a minute after a made basket. I can tell you the official have no say in that stoppage at all unless there is a whistle blown. So this idea that only the officials stop the clock is not correct.

Peace

I had an interesting conversation today concerning this play. While this explanation doesn't make it right it makes it understandable. As Rut stated the precision timing wasn't stopped and started by an official on the floor, just not plausible. However with the clock operator stopping the clock in the last minute, is there a possibility that when Parker takes her shot, the clock operator is anticipating it going in..And everyone here has anticipated a call before...so with anticipation the operator shuts it down...then realizes it didn't go through, and that it was turned off and voila, turns it back on again....with what we know is acceptable lag time or used to be acceptable lag time that would account for about a second or a little more, to anticipate, shut it down, realize, and turn it back on....it not only is a reasonable expalanation, but also, maybe instead of homering someone this clock operator is trying to make sure to get it shut down for Rutgers to have some time left....only um...the shot didn't go in...anyway...hack away...

Agree. Right. And what's completely lost here IMO is that the shooter got pulled down from behind by the RU player. If there was no foul then the officials would have gone to the monitor to look at the timing and found what they were looking for without the complication of a foul. But there ya go, it's all over & done with now (except for who may or may not get invitations from the ncaa in a few weeks...)

As I said, tough situation all around. I feel their pain.

http://www.oicu2.com/afc/ClintonBubba.jpg

Bullsh*t.

That said, I'm not automatically assuming malicious intent on the part of the timer. It could have been an accident, or there could have been faulty wiring, etc. But, I'd bet money on the fact that there was a control station at the table.

Sounds like a reasonable explanation.

So after all of our input here, anyone heard anything from the Conference? Any "official" word from the powers-that-be???

Of course not. That would ruin all the fun speculating!

That was my understanding of PTS also.

However, I've certainly been wrong before also.

The situation where the timer at the table did "assume" that Parker's shot was going to go in was the question I had in all of this, but I can definitely say this. . .the center official nearest the table had the first whistle on the foul by Vaughn, and the lead official had an "echo" whistle on that play.

In that case, I'm wondering if they could've gone to the monitor to see at what precise time the center official's whistle sounded?

Also, consider this -- anything 0.3 and under has to be a tap for goal or otherwise disregarded -- when that foul was sounded, did the Tennessee player:

A) Have the ball in her hands or B) Did she release it?

If she released it and the ball goes through, even with the clock stopped at 0.2, that shot would be waved off being that you CANNOT have a shot at that time on the clock.

Just my $.02 cents worth.

All of his friends?

All?

Bwahahahahaha...........

I'm telling the Times that you said that.