Tennessee--Rutgers ending--Women's Game

[Gimlet25id]

http://scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=6154

This article obviously debunks the assertion by the Times that the table @ Tennessee had no way to stop the clock.

It also implies that it is unlikely that one of the officials stopped the clock by pushing the button on the pack then starting it again by pushing the button again.

It certainly leads the reader to believe that the mistake must have come from the table, I.E the timer getting caught up in the moment and either anticipating a call or just flat out goofed. Either way it looks like this clock malfunction isn't a malfunction just the timer stopping starting the clock.

What stands out to me the most in this release is that they agree there was a foul but the foul happened after time had expired. Even so they fail to mention that if the Rutgers player would've never fouled then the shot by the Tennessee player, if it went in, would've been reviewed @ the monitor and more then likely would've not counted since she was clearly holding the ball with .2 left.

The Rutgers player didn't know that time had expired! Why pull the player down and commit a foul that would have to be called.

This whole situation is unfortunate for all parties involved. The Rutgers AD tries to pass some of the blame onto the officials for not reconstructing the play with a stop watch. The only time you reconstruct the play with a stop watch is if you have knowledge of a timing mistake.

I agree that there obviously is a timing mistake and that the foul happened after the expiration of time. I just can't IMO, fault the officials if they had no knowledge of the timing error. If they knew then the 2 who were @ the Monitor would've reconstructed the play. Those two officials are @ the top of the Women's game and have been on more big games then most. Therefore I have to believe that they had no idea that there was a timing error.

I would venture to guess that from this game and this play that there will be a change in our court-side monitor procedure.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Referee24.7

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.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Even so they fail to mention that if the Rutgers player would've never fouled then the shot by the Tennessee player, if it went in, would've been reviewed @ the monitor and more then likely would've not counted since she was clearly holding the ball with .2 left.

I'm not sure where these thoughts are coming from, as the rule involving not being able to shoot with 0.3 seconds left or less has to do only with a throw-in or FT (5-2-5). In other words, during a situation where the clock is already (legally) stopped for a throw-in or FT, the rule says you cannot "catch-and-shoot" with 0.3 sec. or less, you can only tap the ball in that amount of time.

Otherwise, during a live ball situation, the only requirement is that the ball be "clearly in flight" on a try or tap before the horn sounds. (5-6-2, exception 1).

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not sure where these thoughts are coming from, as the rule involving not being able to shoot with 0.3 seconds left or less has to do only with a throw-in or FT (5-2-5). In other words, during a situation where the clock is already (legally) stopped for a throw-in or FT, the rule says you cannot "catch-and-shoot" with 0.3 sec. or less, you can only tap the ball in that amount of time.

Otherwise, during a live ball situation, the only requirement is that the ball be "clearly in flight" on a try or tap before the horn sounds. (5-6-2, exception 1).

I realize what you are saying...but if a player can't catch and shoot with .3 left after a dead ball what makes you think the player can catch an shoot with .2. My point is that more then likly she wouldn't have got the ball off in time. Time is time, in the replay she is clearly holding the ball with .2.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

I realize what you are saying...but if a player can't catch and shoot with .3 left after a dead ball what makes you think the player can catch an shoot with .2. My point is that more then likly she wouldn't have got the ball off in time. Time is time, in the replay she is clearly holding the ball with .2.

Because there is no such rule. Additinally, there is not even a suggestion that a player holding the ball can't get a shot off in 0.2. The rule you're referring to says they can't catch-hold-shoot in 0.3. You've got the player starting the catch at 0.4. How long does the catch take? Apparently, it can be short enough that from 0.4 to 0.0, there is time to shoot. You can't subdivide the 0.4 to say that any particular part of the action has to occur at a specific time.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

I realize what you are saying...but if a player can't catch and shoot with .3 left after a dead ball what makes you think the player can catch an shoot with .2. My point is that more then likly she wouldn't have got the ball off in time. Time is time, in the replay she is clearly holding the ball with .2.

What rule would you use to dis-allow the basket?

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What rule would you use to dis-allow the basket?

Again I didn't say by rule that you would automatically disallow the basket. I said more then likely in this play the basket wouldn't have been good. The TP is holding the ball on the floor with .2 on the clock. Either way if there wasn't a foul they would've been required by rule to go to the monitor if the basket was good in this play to either count or cancel.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Again I didn't say by rule that you would automatically disallow the basket. I said more then likely in this play the basket wouldn't have been good. The TP is holding the ball on the floor with .2 on the clock. Either way if there wasn't a foul they would've been required by rule to go to the monitor if the basket was good in this play to either count or cancel.

I agree, they should check the monitor. But they would not be looking at whether the player is still holding the ball at 0.2, they would check to see if the ball was "clearly in flight" at 0.0. Whether the player is holding the ball at 0.2 is completely irrelevent from the review.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree, they should check the monitor. But they would not be looking at whether the player is still holding the ball at 0.2, they would check to see if the ball was "clearly in flight" at 0.0. Whether the player is holding the ball at 0.2 is completely irrelevent from the review.

Dude....I know! I didn't say that they would be looking to see if the player was holding the ball. They would like, you said, be checking to see if it was in flight before 000's on the clock.

My point was that its just unlikly that if she is holding the ball on the floor with .2 that she's not getting the ball off before triple 000's. Thats all and nothing more.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree, they should check the monitor. But they would not be looking at whether the player is still holding the ball at 0.2, they would check to see if the ball was "clearly in flight" at 0.0. Whether the player is holding the ball at 0.2 is completely irrelevent from the review.

Its not a matter if they should but by rule they MUST.

[truerookie]

[quote=Gimlet25id] Those two officials are @ the top of the Women's game and have been on more big games then most. Therefore I have to believe that they had no idea that there was a timing error.

If the aforementioned is true, IMO, it should not have been a timing error at all!!

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by truerookie

If the aforementioned is true, IMO, it should not have been a timing error at all!!

Your kidding right? I mean you've got to be joking! Are you saying that their not? How in the world can you say that the timing mistake is on them? Oh...wait a minute...I remember you think that "C's" sole responsibility is to make sure the running clock doesn't......

Originally Posted by truerookie

I disagree, it's the C responsibility to ensure things go properly with the clock.

(2). The point I'm trying to make is this. If the C was monitoring the clock and observed that the clock STARTED; STOPPED; STARTED; STOPPED again; then we have a foul he/she have definite knowledge that the game should be over before the foul occurred. Game over!!

So if "C" would've been doing what you suggested then maybe, just maybe they would've caught that the running clock stopped, started, then ran out. So while "C" is doing this then who is watching to see if the shot is good or not? While center is eyeballing the clock who is referring "C's" area?

It's a good thing then, from your above quote, that you don't have anything to do with who is/isn't @ the top!! IMO!

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Your kidding right? I mean you've got to be joking! Are you saying that their not? How in the world can you say that the timing mistake is on them? Oh...wait a minute...I remember you think that "C's" sole responsibility is to make sure the running clock doesn't......



So if "C" would've been doing what you suggested then maybe, just maybe they would've caught that the running clock stopped, started, then ran out. So while "C" is doing this then who is watching to see if the shot is good or not? While center is eyeballing the clock who is referring "C's" area?

It's a good thing then, from your above quote, that you don't have anything to do with who is/isn't @ the top!! IMO!

Look Gim, is it ok if I call you Gim? Look we have both spoken and given our perspectives on the play. I'm moving on.

[johnSandlin]

I look at it this way, until any of us are in that situation, we can sit here until we are blue in the face, saying the officials could have done this and should have done this.

However, I say until we are put into that situation this officiating crew were involved with, we will never know or say for sure how will or should have handle the situation.

[rainmaker]

None of this argument about whether or not the shot should be allowed speaks to the issue of the clock "pausing" for a fairly long time at .2 seconds. It appears the refs either didn't know that this happened, didn't notice it in the replays, or didn't feel authorized to address it. I'd be interested in hearing whether there are rules in the NCAA set that speak to this particular issue.

[johnSandlin]

rainmaker,

Under NCAA Rule 2, Section 13, Articles 2 & 3. items 1-4 in art 2, and items A-C in art 3 deal and talk about what the officials can do when they use the replay monitor to what they can and cannot look for and rule on.