Tennessee--Rutgers ending--Women's Game

[JRutledge]

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

[grunewar]

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

[blindzebra]

Ever hear of precision time?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Ever hear of precision time?

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

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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

[blindzebra]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

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.

[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 truerookie

Very good question! BZ do you have an answer?

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

[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