Tennessee--Rutgers ending--Women's Game

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

Just sayin'.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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 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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

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

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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...

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Agree.

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.

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.

[Mark Dexter]

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."

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.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by cmathews

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...

Sounds like a reasonable explanation.

[rockyroad]

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by pizanno

If it's the same PTS systems we use in the west, the game clock timer can absolutely can start and stop the clock.

That was my understanding of PTS also.

However, I've certainly been wrong before also.

[Referee24.7]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

All of his friends?

All?

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Bullsh*t.

I'm telling the Times that you said that.