My guess is that both of these will be POEs next year. We've seen the "desperation heave" 60 feet from the basket with .2 seconds left, and there's been contact (enough for a foul if this was a "normal 8' shot") that's been ignored. The OP is at least the second time an excessive TO request was ignored.

Go ask Chris Webber if we should ignore the request. All sarcasm aside, it's already been answered in this thread, but the answer is that we do not ignore the request. I look at it as maybe it's some kind of weird coaching strategy - I don't like it when coaches try to ref...so as a ref, I'm not going to try to coach a team and determine what on earth they're trying to accomplish. You want a timeout? You got it.

Bonus points:
Who cares? What are you trying to accomplish by singling these guys out? It's bad enough their names were mentioned in the article, so why rub salt into the wound?

A good question. Regardless of whether or not any official can look at the monitor, I'm wondering if it's the R that determines IF they're going to look at the monitor, and if so, WHO will look at it. So if the R decides, "No, we're not going to replay for this", then he is essentially putting the other 2 in a bad position. I'm not sure how the suspension process works or if officials are contacted prior to any suspension, but I would hope in your example, that U1 would be able to state his/her case, and that the other 2 would at least verify U1s request to go to replay which was eventually shot down.

I know in the conferences that I call in, when it comes to kicking a rule, you kick it as a crew, and you get suspended as crew. All for one and one for all.

[QUOTE=ma_ref]I look at it as maybe it's some kind of weird coaching strategy - I don't like it when coaches try to ref...so as a ref, I'm not going to try to coach a team and determine what on earth they're trying to accomplish. You want a timeout? You got it.
QUOTE]

I agree, especially in the NCAA-M's game. They may be actually trying to buy a timeout, especially when they get the ball back, unlike the women and Fed.

Would this be the camp to get a look see for Big Sky:
http://www.stripezone.com/sz/marlaDenham08.asp

JAR, please tell me how you would handle the following situations:

1.) You are working the first game of the year in your town's local 6-year old league. During a dead ball, Coach A says "Billy, you sub into the game for Johnny!" Billy jumps up and down, smiles at his grandparents who are in the first row of the bleachers, and runs straight out onto the floor without being beckoned.

2.) You are working a middle school basketball game. The home team has on gold jerseys that were worn by the high school varsity team 8 years ago.

3.) You are working your state's high school championship game. It is a tie game with 20 seconds remaining. A1 dribbles into a trap and is facing an enormous amount of defensive pressure. Coach A comes up the sideline to where you are trail officiating the play yelling "TIME OUT! TIME OUT!" As you glance to make sure the coach is requesting a time out, you notice he is two feet past the line of his coaching box.

You didn't grant a time out before time expired, so there is no time out.

That's the whole point. There was one second to go, be patient, make sure you saw what happened, and by then, time is expired and you don't have to worry about it.

If there were 5 or 10 seconds remaining, you would probably have to handle it differently.

Well, let me put in my 2 cents - the first two plays really have nothing to do with the OP, since they have to do with little kid's games. The 3rd play might be closer, but it is still HS vs. college. However, all of these plays revolve around a fairly simple principle - how do the "powers-that-be" want these plays called? In the kid's games, I'm sure most coaches, administrators, and assignors would want you to ignore these T's. In the HS championship game, I know in our state the officials assigned will have a meeting the night before with the state's head of officials and head clinician, and these types of situations will be discussed. The officials will know ahead of time whether the coaching box is to be strictly enforced to the letter, or what type of leeway will be allowed.

In the OP, it is still not entirely clear to me the L saw and ignored the request. It is not stated that way in the article, but it is mentioned as the OP's "understanding" of what happened. We do know, though, that the NCAA does not want a excess TO request to be ignored. We also know that what got the officials in trouble was not going to the monitor in this situation, to see if the request and therefore the T, was before the horn sounded.

M&M- we aren't disagreeing... none of those plays have to do with the original post. I was just irritated at JAR's needle of "what other things will you ignore?" I'm not talking about other situations- I am talking about THIS situation. If he wants to call a technical foul in all 3 of the situations I talked about, then he can be critical of those of us who see shades of gray situationally in the games we work.

Regarding the situation in the OP, I stand by my original statement.

1.) If there had been NO whistle as time expired, there would be no issues.

2.) If there had been a whistle, they had gone to the monitor to check the clock, and assessed a technical foul, there would be no issues.

By blowing a whistle, and then NOT going to the monitor to check the clock, there were major issues.

I would be fine with anyone who chose option 1 or option 2.

@ the NCAA level it is up to the "R" to go to the monitor, usually goes with the official that had the in question play. One of the "U's" can go to the "R" and request a monitor review for a play as long as it is a re-viewable by rule.

In the OP the "R" said that he knew that the T/O was @ the horn or after the horn & decides to ignore it and go OT. The fact that the "R" decided to rule this way doesn't remove the "U's" from the liability of kicking the rule.

One of the "U's" should have spoken up, if they didn't, and tell the "R" that they have to go to the monitor to see if there should be any time on the clock when the T/O was granted with the whistle. Now if the "R" says that he's not and he knows that there wasn't then in the leagues I work we are instructed to make a statement to the "R" along the lines of, "I want to go on record by saying that I don't agree with this ruling and that I think it should be such & such." The supervisor will be conversing with all 3 officials about the play. If that happens then the official that went on record with the other 2 probably would be excused from kicking the rule.

I have never had to give that statement since if one of us is giving information and says that they are sure their information is correct then why wouldn't the "R" accept it and react/rule appropriately? It leaves me to surmise that in the OP that the "U's" probably didn't give the information that they should be going to the monitor. Which would be why they all 3 got the game suspension.

Two of the officials concerned worked in the NCAA tourney last year. (Curry and Scofield) Neither of them worked "deep in the tourney." They both did first round games. Curry worked a game in Buffalo and Scofield in Chicago. Curry also worked a first round game in 2006.

Obviously, top notch officials though. I agree TRef no reason not to go to the monitor in this case just to be sure.

It is up to the R to make the final determination after going to the monitor, but I don't see anywhere in the books where the R is the only one who can decide to go to the monitor...there are specific guidelines as to when officials "shall" go to the monitor, and this situation certainly fell into those guidelines...that's why the crew was suspended - going to the monitor was NOT a judgement call in this situation.

So if they had gone to the monitor, and seen that the request was made with one second left, would they have been allowed to put one second on the clock and grant the time out? Or is the rule that the whistle is determinant?

.................

....................


grant the timeout