Tennessee--Rutgers ending--Women's Game
 

I have no vested interest in any game that Tennessee and Rutgers ever play in. Rutgers got robbed and the officials allowed it to happen.

I do not know if anyone saw the end of the game, but the Tennessee clock operator stopped the clock with .2 seconds and the clock would have run out and a foul was called. The officials looked at the monitor and unless the officials saw a completely different angle (from the other end line) the clock clearly was stopped and which had to be more than a second of time the officials then called a foul. The officials decided to just go with the .2 seconds on the clock and in my opinion it was clear the game would have been over. I cannot believe these officials did not even notice this and allowed Tennessee to shoot two FTs and win the game by one.

I am literally in shock by what I just saw.

Peace

JRut - I saw it too. The Rutgers coach looked none too pleased didn't she? Yikes!

Ever hear of precision time?:rolleyes:

There were 2 whistles on the foul and the female official tableside blew her whistle just before the male at lead, and that is why the clock stopped at .2.

BZ, I have used the PTS several times. I am very familiar with how it works. The clock does not only stop by the whistle. And no officials had put their hand up to call a foul. And listening to the play live, I did not hear a whistle until after the .2 stopped on the clock. I am willing to go there with you if I saw an official clearly call a foul. And the Lead did not call a foul well after the .2 was stopped.

Peace

I said clearly that there was a DOUBLE WHISTLE on the play and the female official tableside BLEW HERS FIRST.

And it was after the clock had stopped. Their whistles were almost simultaneous. If the clock was stopped without a whistle, then you cannot have a foul after the game is over for a plain old foul.

Peace

In the replay you can see exactly when the clock stopped at .2, it happened when the Rutgers player swings down and contacts the shoulder facing the female official at center.

Lead reacts to the grab and pull after the swing down.

I'll bet anything that the C blew first, stopped the clock and leads whistle was a split second later.

Both had their arms up as well.

What you said. It was clear the C called this right when the foul happened (which was at 0.2 seconds, no disputing that) and that PT stopped the clock. The L (who was in the camera shot) was late to the party.

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?

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

My point is not that the clock just stopped. My point was the clock stopped twice. And then it started up again and they had to put time on the clock.

And let us take this a step further. What in the heck is the Center making a call right in front of Lead that is all over the play? Not only was the play clearly in his area, but she never came and got the call. If that was a double whistle, you have to come in more than a step. That was an awfully long call to make.

Peace

The clock stopped before the foul occured.

Peace

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

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

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

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 :eek:

Rut, this is how this is going to go. Most of us will watch this play on Sportscenter at some point. The clock obviously stopped before the foul was called. But BZ has spoken! I don't know what is going on with him right now, but he can be obviously wrong and not admit it. He did the same thing in the thread about shoes and now this. It isn't an issue with PT because, like you said, they ran it several times on SC and the clock clearly stopped. The only thing they said about a whistle was an inadvertant whistle. If that happened, play would stop with .2 on the clock, NOT an inadvertant whistle that stops the clock and then the foul.

What are the NCAA rules on what is correctable using video? Might not be the refs' fault.

The thing that's weird about is that something caused the clock operator to hit the button. Or do we think it was a malfunction?

The refs could look at the video and determine if there was a foul called after the time ran out.

Not only was there not a foul until the game clock had 0:00 (at least based on the reaction of the officials), the ball hit the rim on the put back before a whistle was blown. I just feel bad for Rutgers who based on what I saw should have won the game and beat the two top teams in the country.

Peace

Well, I guess I'll be spending the rest of the night trying to unlearn that signal.

How do you have an intentional foul occur after you say the game (hypothetically) has ended? Are you saying you would have called an intentional technical? (which doesn't exist in NCAA-W)

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gif

Peace

His point was that all you could call was an intentional foul if the game was technically over (or a flagrant foul). In other words the clock not running properly could not have had a shooting foul with .2 on the clock.

Peace

Your right I was thinking about Men's college and high school when I typed that.

In a women's basketball game you could not call this foul after time expires but in a men's college or high school game you could, right?

Was Don Imus one of the officials in the game? :eek:

..just sayin'
 

i've just watched it 20 times on my Tivo. Felt like the Zapruder tape.

1) whistles were after the clocked stopped at 0.2. not even close.
2) agree that this is a big time foul that the lead called correctly.
3) the reason why the C might have a whistle (late) is because when it comes to last second shots (or fouls), everyone on the crew should be watching the ball because that's what decides the game. (not trying to start a debate. if you don't agree, then go ahead and swallow your whistle at the end of the game when the ball is out of your area)
4) going to the reply monitor didn't really help here. it actually created the situation. though the refs didn't have the option not to.

so the big mystery is why the clock stopped.

i'm not a conspiracy theorist, but i do believe the theory that the most obvious explaination is usually somewhere close to the truth.

the only way the clock behaved the way it did is if the timer at the table stopped and started it again. A cynic (not me) would say they did it to give the rebounder that extra time they needed to put the shot up.

Unless the "whistle" that stopped the clock was really soft, then the clock should have expired before the foul was called (and you can clearly hear both the L and C's whistles on the after the foul)

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

Piss off, trollboy.

Go back over and continue annoying the guys over on the <i>beisbol</i> forum. Your mission in life is not complete over there yet.

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.

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. :)

[QUOTE=cford]
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?

IMO, when it was all said this is what they went with.

[QUOTE=truerookie]
As Hawk Harrelson, White Sox announcer would say, "This ball game is ovah!"

Wow.

[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?

[QUOTE=truerookie]That coupled with the fact that Stringer and her assistants are screaming at the top of their lungs that the clock was stopped before the foul should've at least put a thought in their head to maybe look to see if the clock malfunctioned.

[QUOTE=JoeTheRef]You know this how? I read her interview and that not what she said.

No I don't want to rephrase. You should go back & read what I said again...

Once the clock starts their is no reason to look @ it again to make sure it continues to run. Generally the times you look @ the clock is when there is a change of possession, whistle, and during PTS games after you hit the button.

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.

You might consider rephrasing your statement!! It's not the responsibility of the "C" to watch the CLOCK. It's C's responsibility to count or cancel the basket. You very well can't do that if your watching the clock.

You better watch the clock or try to watch the clock. What was the trail doing? If you do not watch the clock you might have people all over the media claiming you did the wrong thing. And they had an opportunity to correct the mistake when looking at the monitor.

Peace

Rut...Why would you try and watch the clock? We shouldn't have to do that. We have the LED lights, the horn and in this game the monitor. No reason to look @ the clock again until there is a whistle or the final horn. Who cares what the media says. Center will make the call on the last second shot in relation to the LED lights or horn.

Trail has to referee the backside of this play in the paint not watch the clock. Like I said before they would've had to know that the clock was running, stopped prematurely, & started again in order to know to look for that on the monitor review.

And late in the game when the score is close and the possiblity of a foul may occur.

You watch the clock (as well as other things) so you know if there is a malfunction or something else takes place that you can offer information. And looking at the clock is not meaning you only watch the clock. And if you really do not care about what the media thinks, then either you have never been in a game where the media is covering and you have never had a game on TV. This game was a nationally televised game, you better make sure you have some idea if that clock is running or not because when the supervisor gets complaints, they are not going look away from what the media is pointing out. I can tell you the teams will not be looking the other way; neither will the conference or governing body. And if this was just a HS game, I would want to be able to have all the information so that someone cannot say I did not do my job properly.

It is very easy to keep an eye on the clock as the trail when nothing is happening around you. The players are all in the paint making desperate attempts to shoot the ball, there is no back side to be hawking. The Lead was all over this play and the center has another angle. Not much you are going to be doing as the Trail with bodies in front of you.

Peace

The most truly amazing thing about this whole thread?

Jeff Rutledge was watching a Wimmens' game.....and admitted it.:D

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.

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

[QUOTE=Gimlet25id] We have the LED lights, the horn and in this game the monitor.
(1). So, because we have these things it releases us from monitoring 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 definate knowledge that the game should be over before the foul occurred. Game over!!

I tend to watch games like this because I want to see the top teams in Wimmens' college basketball. Also Candace Parker is basically a home girl and I have been following her career since she was in HS.

Peace

You're seriously suggesting that somebody on the crew should be tasked with watching the clock while it's running at the end of the game to make sure it doesn't stop and start inappropriately?

Is this in the mechanics manual somewhere? Are they teaching this at camps? Or is this one of those kneejerk reactions because "if somebody had been doing 'their job'..."?

There are so many problems with this play, its hard to know where to begin.

For those of you arguing in ANY way that what happened MIGHT have been correct, PLEASE STOP!! RIGHT NOW. You are making a complete fool out of yourself. Rut is 100% right. Not only could there have not been a foul called at .2, the UT player was just then grabbing the rebound. The clock stopped long before a foul was called.

I agree with the other posters who said there was no foul here. I'm not even sure a Rut player made ANY contact with the shooter, but that's beside the point as all this happened long after the clock should have gone off.

The only explanation here is that the officials did not know that the clock stopped and had no way of knowing even with the replays. What we saw on ESPN was not what they saw on the monitor. There is no way under the sun that they could have ruled the way they did if they saw what we saw. If in fact, they did, they should be fired for gross incompetence.

Finally, from a mechanics standpoint, the C is WAAAYYYY out of position.

Comprehension!!!! You would have a WHISTLE which if your the off official then you would look @the clock to make sure the clock stopped.

If this is indeed the C's responsibility, I'm guessing there's something in the manual similar to...

1.2.3.4 With time running down, in a close, big, or really big, or really really big, but not necessarily in a small to medium-sized game, the C shall focus his/her attention entirely on the game clock to monitor the possibility that the home timer, an inadventent whistle, or a clock malfunction doesn't cause the clock to stop and restart when you least expect it. Also, while his/her attention is focused entirely on the game clock, he/she shall also focus on the ball leaving the player's hand to determine whether the ball was away before time expired. Also, if the C want's to keep his/her job, he/she shall also focus on making sure he/she doesn't miss something obvious in his/her PCA or secondary areas of coverage that would cause the supervisor's eyebrows to make any upward motion. It is recommended therefore that all college women's officials be outfitted with a third eye.

I do not know what you mean by being "tasked" with watching the clock. I watch the clock often so I know if it was started properly.

I have no idea, nor do I care. I do not officiate only based on what is said in a manual.

Yes it is taught at camps. I will give you a quick story. I was working at a camp a couple of years ago for a D1 Supervisor. I was working with two officials that worked D1 already (I did not know this at the beginning of the game) and we had about 3 or 4 timing mistakes in the game. I caught all of them and my partners had no idea. The evaluator (who is a current D1 Official) on our court went on and on with the two guys about how they would lose their checks and get fired if they let that kind of thing go. Then I was complemented heavily about how I noticed this and my partners clearly dropped the ball in this specific situation.

And as a current college official, when you deal with the shot clock I have made a habit to watch the clock in relationship to the shot clock to make sure it is started and stopped properly. Because when something goes wrong, it is looked highly by those that assign it, that those are mistakes you cannot have.

Peace

You got to be kidding me. The clock was running, had been. Why would you be looking @ the clock? To make sure it keeps running? I understand that if theres a whistle then you need to make sure it stops or if the ball is coming live you need to make sure the clock starts, but the clock had properly started. Why would yo keep looking @ it to make sure it continues to run?



I have had several TV games and several games where the media is covering the game and can honestly say I don't care what they think. Heck all you have to do is listen to the color commentators to realize they have no clue on how to call a game or any real comprehension of the rules.

The clock was running!!!! My point all along. Once you know its running there is no need to look @ the clock to make sure it continues to run if there wasn't a whistle.


So since you don't think you need to referee backside plays or move to get an angle to help referee your just going to watch the clock to make sure it continues to run...Hmmm...never heard of that before. Beside in this play there was plenty of play to referee for trail on the backside that Center couldn't see.

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.

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!!

That I can totally buy. And I'm becoming more and more aware all the time of the clock starting/stopping properly in my games. Or more importantly when it doesn't start/stop properly. I agree we need to notice these things and fix them when they're wrong.

However, it sounded like you were suggesting, and it certainly sounds like some others are suggesting, that the clock stopping and restarting during play, with no whistle or other indication of trouble, no matter how briefly, should also absolutely be noticed by the crew.

The only way to do that, is for somebody to be continuously watching the clock. (I will admit to watching it much more often during really boring games, and have sometimes wondered if the clock is running too slowly, but never have I watched it continuously throughout the game.)

IMHO about the only reasonable indication of clock trouble in a situation like the one in the OP would be if the C were counting down, and it took longer than expected to get to the horn. And in that case the C may perhaps glance at the clock to ensure it's still running, but only if he/she believed he/she could safely take his/her eyes off the ball. Which of us, in reality, would ever seriously suspect that we were actually right and the clock, with it's tenth-of-a-second accuracy, was wrong.

It's obvious that we can't see every tenth of a second as the clock runs, and we certainly can't be watching constantly. But in the OP, they certainly could have watched constantly during one of the replay tapes and seen the prboelm at that point!

The game is down to seconds, I better have some idea what happens with that clock if we call a foul or if some other reason we have a malfunction. And that information can be discussed before we go to the monitor.

I think you missed the point. The evidence is going to likely come from the media. I do not care what a commentator says, but the video and the different angles will be used to prove that you got it right or that you got it wrong. And even what is said in the media, might be used to take action or to make statements to agree with your call or to say you made a mistake. And this game will likely have some statement from someone about the clock or the officials. It has in other cases similar to this. Remember the Oklahoma-Oregon Football game in 2006. A replay official resigned and the crew was suspended and it was partly because of the media frenzy. And the participants used the media to plead their case.



OK.

I think you need to read what I said. I never said it was one verse the other. You better learn to multi-task as an official or you might find yourself in similar situations. I said that I would be paying attention to the clock. And based on the play, the issue was not backside coverage to be worried about. There was nothing to watch, but the clock in this case for the trail official. Two other officials clearly had a better look at the play for contact purposes. And one of the officials had to rule on the last second shot as well. I guess the center only should worry about contact and not know if the shot got off in time. At least that is if I use your logic.

Peace

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 <B>stops or pauses during a live ball play</B>. 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 <B>right away</B>, 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.

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.


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

Wow, my first endorsement of the political season :D

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

:D

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.

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.

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.

Chuck posting somewhere in this thread?

Agree.

:D

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

Can I say something?

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

From today's NY Times.....<i>"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 <b>NOT</b> controlled by anyone at the scorers table."</i>

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

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.

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

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

No. Who asked you?

Figures. Oh, well. :)

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?

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

Just sayin'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It IS possible for the Precision Timing System to stop without blowing the whistle and without the timer stopping it. PTS sent out the following letter on Feb. 1:

February 1st, 2008

To all officials working games with Precision Timing:

We would like to remind them once again the importance of not talking to the players with the whistles in their mouths. Doing this will cause the clock to stop. The whistle may not make a sound but it is oscillating and therefore stopping the clock. The referees should hold the whistles in their hand when talking to the players. These inadvertent stops are very disruptive to the games and can be eliminated.

We have heard of a few instances of these stops over the course of this season and I think it might behoove us to remind the referees again of this simple bottom line - Don't talk to the players with the whistle in your mouth.

We are trying to be proactive with this memo. Thanks for your help. Don't hesitate to call if we can do anything for you.

Mike

Precision Time Systems
Michael Costabile
President
910-253-9850
910-253-8720 (fax)

Interesting.

Does the Times know about this?

Not according to Rut. He's watching the clock to make sure there's not going to be a clock malfunction!!!

Hell if he was on this game he would've caught that the clock stopped on its own then started since he didn't have anything to referee he would've been watching the clock!:D

SEC/BIG EAST Comment
 

The game clock is on the same place as the shot. It is not hard to see the clock. I do not know a college gym that does not have it that way. That is easier than working a HS game where it is very rare you would see a clock in an advantageous position. And during HS games I can see the clock stop and start often. It really is not hard. I did similar things tonight and during my HS game and the clock was not on top of the basket.

Peace

This is not the case when the ball is live. I believe that this is only applicable when there is less then 0.4 on the clock and the ball is dead.

Back on page 2 #18 I posted the exact times that everything happened.

The Tennessee player first makes contact with the ball on the rebound at 0.4. She is just landing from the rebound at 0.2. The Rutgers player makes contact to start the foul 0.3 seconds after the clock stops (so it would have been after 0.0)

Thank you.

She taught you well. Good memory.

Well, something has to replace the hair follicles in his head...

Dan has plenty of hair follicles in his head. It's the ones <b>on</b> his head that are missing.

Just saying.....