Tennessee--Rutgers ending--Women's Game

[Jesse James]

If a PTS whistle stopped the clock, why did the clock eventually re-start on the play after the pause at 0.2?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

If a PTS whistle stopped the clock, why did the clock eventually re-start on the play after the pause at 0.2?

Very good question! BZ do you have an answer?

[blindzebra]

Doesn't change the fact that the clock stopped when the foul occurred.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Doesn't change the fact that the clock stopped when the foul occurred.

The clock stopped before the foul occured.

Peace

[truerookie]

As I observed the thread and I watched the replay on ESPN. IMO, it should have been a no call. Clearly, Anosike jumped back into the defender(s) to draw contact on the play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by truerookie

As I observed the thread and I watched the replay on ESPN. IMO, it should have been a no call. Clearly, Anosike jumped back into the defender(s) to draw contact on the play.

There was more contact on Candace Parker before on the rebound. I am not one that feels you should swallow your whistle just to do so, but if you allowed a lot of contact on the play before, let the other contact go. But I think the bigger issue was the clock, not the call near the end of the game. That is where judgment comes into play on a foul, the clock is another story.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Dude, I just looked at the replay on SportsCenter and they ran the clock out before both officials (L and C) had their hand up. And the clock stopped at .2 and then started again. Even SC did a replay and clearly showed the clock stopped and even showed home much time would have run off the clock. I even taped the replay of this to see if what I saw was accurate. The only way BZ would be right if an official blew a whistle before they put their hand up, but the clock started again. If that is how the PTS works, that is news to me. The whistle is supposed to stop, not stop and restart the clock. And I would think the officials would see this on the replay and make the proper decision. I have a feeling this will not be the last we hear of this. My issue is not whether there should have been a foul, my issue is the clock stopped improperly and the foul would not have been relevant to the end of the game.

Peace

[cford]

This was the most amazing finish to a game that I have ever seen (When it comes to officiating)!

Let me break it down for everyone that didn't see it. I will try and post a clip of it later.

Tennessee (White) is losing 58-57.

5.5 Tennessee player shoots from behind the free throw line and misses.
3.8 Tennessee player (Parker) gets the rebound.
1.6 Tennessee player shoots 7 feet from the basket and misses
0.4 Tennessee player grabs the rebound in the air.
0.2 Tennessee player lands from gathering the rebound.
0.2 Clock Stops
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2 Rutgers player grabs Tennessee player from behind and yanks her to the ground.

This is what should have occurred.

0.4 Tennessee player grabs the rebound in the air.
0.2 Tennessee player lands from gathering the rebound.
0.2 Clock Stops
0.0 Time should have expired.
-0.1 Rutgers player grabs Tennessee player from behind and yanks her to the ground. (This should be an intentional foul! Obviously this opens a whole new bag of worms!)

(For the timing above I used frame by frame step though from my DVR and everything is very accurate. Eight frames (from one of the angle that they played in slow motion) is exactly 0.1 seconds. I went back 2 seconds and counted each frame, 24 frames went by before the Rutgers player made contact to start her foul. Time should have expired at 16 frames.)

For those saying that the C had a whistle. The C could NOT have had a whistle because the foul had not yet occurred! The clock stopped before any contact on a foul occurred. Was it the timer? Was it a malfunction?

So time should have expired and Rutgers should have won, right? Or, if time had expired would they have called an intentional foul? NO they ruled it a common foul (based on the fact that players where lined up at the free throw line and after both made free throws Rutgers was permitted to make the throw-in from any point outside of the end line). So by rule if they decided it was a common foul then the game should have been over (if the time did not stop). Also this is women's college rules so even if there was an intentional foul after time expired they cannot penalize it. If this was a High School or Men's college game then they could penalize the intentional foul.

I don't know if there is any rule in place that would allow them to fix the timing issue. They must have definite knowledge that the time expired. I think that a case play is needed for this situation where the clock stops when it should not and a video monitor is available for the officials. The officials need a timer (on the monitor) that is external from the game clock that continues to run. This would allow them to fix this play.

By the way anyone that says this is not intentional needs to watch it again because this is the exact definition of an intentional foul!

The Tennessee player is then allowed to shoot 2 free throws and makes both with 0.2 seconds showing on the clock. Rutgers is then allowed a throw-in along the endline which they eventually throw away. (The clock actually didn't start on this play but it was touched before going out of bounds so by rule the game is over.)

WOW

[lpbreeze]

the clock did stop before the foul occurred. Still the player never should have fouled her. Also I was watching the game live and the clock also didn't start after the free throws when the ball was thrown in. I don't know what the heck has happening with the clock. tough break. worse than the Georgetown-Nova game

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The clock stopped before the foul occured.

Peace

Thank you JR. I'm not sure which game BZ was watching. But the clock clearly stopped before the foul. We'll see it on YouTube soon, if it's not already on there.

[Gimlet25id]

I watched this game last night and replayed it over & over. Just watched it again on SC & replayed it over and over. The clock did stop but begs the question why?

A couple of points.....

This play is a "SHALL" court-side monitor play. The officials have to go to the monitor to determine if the foul happened before the expiration of time. When @ the monitor hes asking for camera angles of the in question play. He's telling the truck to get him the play from every angle available. Most importantly when the contact happened he would have them pause the frame and look @ the time. The time is superimposed @ the bottom of the court-side monitor screen.

Unless the officials knew there was a timing error they wouldn't be looking for that @ the monitor. When he gets the play and pulls it up he's having the truck step it forward frame by frame until he sees the foul and then pauses the frame and checks the time. If it showed .2 then he did the right thing from the information given to him.

Could he have seen that the clock did stop? Sure if that was what he was looking for. He didn't know it stopped so I'm sure his conversation to the replay personnel was all in regards to finding the frames that showed the contact while checking the time that was on the clock when the contact happened.

If he did see that the clock stopped prematurely then he can from the court-side monitor by rule, reconstruct the play and if possible use the stop watch @ the table to try, if possible, to get the time correct if he knew.

I watched the game live and didn't know the clock stopped until after SC replayed it several times. Imagine the "R" going to the monitor and looking @ the play. He probably sees most of it in fast forward until he gets to the play with the contact. Unless he knows theirs a clock malfunction then why would he be looking for anything else? His purpose @ the monitor was to see when the foul occurred and if their was time on the clock. When the contact happened their was .2 on the clock. Unbeknown to him the clock had stopped prematurely.

BTW...Some one said that the contact should've been ignored since the Tennessee player jumped back into the defender. Right!!! If you don't think this play was a foul then I don't know what would be. She pulled her down from the backside.

The officials didn't screw anybody nor are they @ fault for not knowing the clock stopped and started. None of the officials are looking @ the clock @ this point in the game. The clock had been running after the last dead ball. No reason to look @ it again until there's a whistle. Unless someone points out that the clock stopped then started then they wouldn't have any reason to believe they had a problem. They handled this by the book on the information they were given.

Keep in mind that they aren't getting the same look that we are getting @ home. They might get the same view but its not on a big color screen TV. They are reviewing the play on a small 8-10" screen while giving specific instruction on what they want to see & only looking @ that information.

[Larks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raI-Fp8iisM

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

I watched this game last night and replayed it over & over. Just watched it again on SC & replayed it over and over. The clock did stop but begs the question why?

A couple of points.....

This play is a "SHALL" court-side monitor play. The officials have to go to the monitor to determine if the foul happened before the expiration of time. When @ the monitor hes asking for camera angles of the in question play. He's telling the truck to get him the play from every angle available. Most importantly when the contact happened he would have them pause the frame and look @ the time. The time is superimposed @ the bottom of the court-side monitor screen.

Unless the officials knew there was a timing error they wouldn't be looking for that @ the monitor. When he gets the play and pulls it up he's having the truck step it forward frame by frame until he sees the foul and then pauses the frame and checks the time. If it showed .2 then he did the right thing from the information given to him.

Could he have seen that the clock did stop? Sure if that was what he was looking for. He didn't know it stopped so I'm sure his conversation to the replay personnel was all in regards to finding the frames that showed the contact while checking the time that was on the clock when the contact happened.

If he did see that the clock stopped prematurely then he can from the court-side monitor by rule, reconstruct the play and if possible use the stop watch @ the table to try, if possible, to get the time correct if he knew.

I watched the game live and didn't know the clock stopped until after SC replayed it several times. Imagine the "R" going to the monitor and looking @ the play. He probably sees most of it in fast forward until he gets to the play with the contact. Unless he knows theirs a clock malfunction then why would he be looking for anything else? His purpose @ the monitor was to see when the foul occurred and if their was time on the clock. When the contact happened their was .2 on the clock. Unbeknown to him the clock had stopped prematurely.

BTW...Some one said that the contact should've been ignored since the Tennessee player jumped back into the defender. Right!!! If you don't think this play was a foul then I don't know what would be. She pulled her down from the backside.

The officials didn't screw anybody nor are they @ fault for not knowing the clock stopped and started. None of the officials are looking @ the clock @ this point in the game. The clock had been running after the last dead ball. No reason to look @ it again until there's a whistle. Unless someone points out that the clock stopped then started then they wouldn't have any reason to believe they had a problem. They handled this by the book on the information they were given.

Keep in mind that they aren't getting the same look that we are getting @ home. They might get the same view but its not on a big color screen TV. They are reviewing the play on a small 8-10" screen while giving specific instruction on what they want to see & only looking @ that information.

I've seen the replay now numerous times and I'm on board with Rut and the rest. Was watching in a bar last night after my 6PM varsity game (I wish they played more at 6PM) and didn't see the controversy, only the foul (which I would still expect the C to get as well as the L and even the T -- at that point, all eyes should be on the ball, but that's a discussion for another thread, I suppose).

Regardless, I'm happy. Of course, I spent 3 years in a graduate program at UT-Knoxville.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=Gimlet25id]The officials didn't screw anybody nor are they @ fault for not knowing the clock stopped and started. None of the officials are looking @ the clock @ this point in the game. The clock had been running after the last dead ball. No reason to look @ it again until there's a whistle. Unless someone points out that the clock stopped then started then they wouldn't have any reason to believe they had a problem. They handled this by the book on the information they were given.

So, let me make sure that I undrstand this correctly. It's no officials responsibility to see if the clock start or stop properly in a game of this magnatude and the score close correct? Because (1) we have the PTS (2) we have the monitor. It's the C responsible to watch the clock in Women's.

Do you want to rephrase that statement?

[pizanno]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

I watched this game last night and replayed it over & over. Just watched it again on SC & replayed it over and over. The clock did stop but begs the question why?

A couple of points.....

This play is a "SHALL" court-side monitor play. The officials have to go to the monitor to determine if the foul happened before the expiration of time. When @ the monitor hes asking for camera angles of the in question play. He's telling the truck to get him the play from every angle available. Most importantly when the contact happened he would have them pause the frame and look @ the time. The time is superimposed @ the bottom of the court-side monitor screen.

Unless the officials knew there was a timing error they wouldn't be looking for that @ the monitor. When he gets the play and pulls it up he's having the truck step it forward frame by frame until he sees the foul and then pauses the frame and checks the time. If it showed .2 then he did the right thing from the information given to him.

Could he have seen that the clock did stop? Sure if that was what he was looking for. He didn't know it stopped so I'm sure his conversation to the replay personnel was all in regards to finding the frames that showed the contact while checking the time that was on the clock when the contact happened.

If he did see that the clock stopped prematurely then he can from the court-side monitor by rule, reconstruct the play and if possible use the stop watch @ the table to try, if possible, to get the time correct if he knew.

I watched the game live and didn't know the clock stopped until after SC replayed it several times. Imagine the "R" going to the monitor and looking @ the play. He probably sees most of it in fast forward until he gets to the play with the contact. Unless he knows theirs a clock malfunction then why would he be looking for anything else? His purpose @ the monitor was to see when the foul occurred and if their was time on the clock. When the contact happened their was .2 on the clock. Unbeknown to him the clock had stopped prematurely.

BTW...Some one said that the contact should've been ignored since the Tennessee player jumped back into the defender. Right!!! If you don't think this play was a foul then I don't know what would be. She pulled her down from the backside.

The officials didn't screw anybody nor are they @ fault for not knowing the clock stopped and started. None of the officials are looking @ the clock @ this point in the game. The clock had been running after the last dead ball. No reason to look @ it again until there's a whistle. Unless someone points out that the clock stopped then started then they wouldn't have any reason to believe they had a problem. They handled this by the book on the information they were given.

Keep in mind that they aren't getting the same look that we are getting @ home. They might get the same view but its not on a big color screen TV. They are reviewing the play on a small 8-10" screen while giving specific instruction on what they want to see & only looking @ that information.

Well put, Gimlet. I agree there's NO WAY I'm watching the clock on any last second plays in the paint. And I totally agree they were not likely aware or looking for the stoppage of clock during the review.

Too bad there's no protest process like the NBA, as this would easily be one that should be overturned.