Big Sky Suspends 3 Men's Officials

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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?

Yes they could put the one second back on the clock. Again - as I understand the situation - they were suspended for not going to the monitor to review as they should have...

[just another ref]

This provokes another question. NFHS rules A1 requests a timeout with time running out in a tie game. Team A has no timeouts remaining. The official definitely hears the request before the buzzer, but the buzzer sounds before the whistle. Nobody has definite knowledge of the time involved, but the request was definitely before the buzzer. What's the call?
__________________

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This provokes another question. NFHS rules A1 requests a timeout with time running out in a tie game. Team A has no timeouts remaining. The official definitely hears the request before the buzzer, but the buzzer sounds before the whistle. Nobody has definite knowledge of the time involved, but the request was definitely before the buzzer. What's the call?
__________________

No rules citation, just my opinion:

Regulation is over as there is no definite knowledge of how much time to put on the clock.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No rules citation, just my opinion:

Regulation is over as there is no definite knowledge of how much time to put on the clock.

I gotta say this is probably how I'd handle it, too...but I'm not very confident I'd be right. Assume for a minute that a coach requests a timeout with approximately 3 seconds left. For some reason, the referee fumbles around with their whistle and isn't able to blow it until after the final buzzer (accidentally falls out of mouth; lanyard breaks and whistle goes to floor; etc...). Nobody has definite knowledge about how much time was left when the coach requested the TO. This is exactly the same situation, just perhaps a different reaction time from the ref.

Remember the buzzer does not mean the game is over. It's an audible signal to the officials that time has expired. I'm thinking common sense has to take over, as the referee definitely heard the TO request before the buzzer. In the original situation, I'm thinking you give the TO, and guesstimate the time (1 second, .5 seconds). Again, I'm not even positive this is right, but I just can't ignore the fact that the ref heard the TO request before the buzzer, and that tells me the TO is granted. The real problem comes with the remaining time determination. I can't seem to believe that "definite knowledge" of time supercedes the actual sequence of events.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Yes they could put the one second back on the clock. Again - as I understand the situation - they were suspended for not going to the monitor to review as they should have...

My question involves the time difference between the request and the whistle. Is the time of the TO on the whistle or the request in NCAA?

[JRutledge]

After reading this thread and another thread, it sounds to me like the Big Sky needs to find a better training method to find their officials.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

After reading this thread and another thread, it sounds to me like the Big Sky needs to find a better training method to find their officials.

Rut, you have hit the nail on the head. This is a situation where no one wanted to come across as NOT be a team player.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

Remember the buzzer does not mean the game is over. It's an audible signal to the officials that time has expired. I'm thinking common sense has to take over, as the referee definitely heard the TO request before the buzzer. In the original situation, I'm thinking you give the TO, and guesstimate the time (1 second, .5 seconds). Again, I'm not even positive this is right, but I just can't ignore the fact that the ref heard the TO request before the buzzer, and that tells me the TO is granted. The real problem comes with the remaining time determination. I can't seem to believe that "definite knowledge" of time supercedes the actual sequence of events.

Unfortunately, your "common sense" could put your butt in a sling if you had to justify your call.

NFHS rule 5-10 explicitly says that you can't guesstimate. You can't put any time back on the clock unless you know the exact time to put back on.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Unfortunately, your "common sense" could put your butt in a sling if you had to justify your call.

NFHS rule 5-10 explicitly says that you can't guesstimate. You can't put any time back on the clock unless you know the exact time to put back on.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, however something just seems wrong about the extreme case I theorized with. Coach calls TO *clearly* before the final buzzer goes off, I gotta believe we somehow give him the TO. There has to be some way around this.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

After reading this thread and another thread, it sounds to me like the Big Sky needs to find a better training method to find their officials.

Jeff, being a former West Coast resident, and still having lots of friends there, everyone knows the Big Sky is a joke. The assignor picks pretty people based on how they look physically, in the hopes that she can "train" them. She is so overbearing on the officials that many try directly for the WCC/WAC/Pac-10 and skip the Big Sky on the way up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

I agree with you whole-heartedly, however something just seems wrong about the extreme case I theorized with. Coach calls TO *clearly* before the final buzzer goes off, I gotta believe we somehow give him the TO. There has to be some way around this.

Philosophically, I agree with you. Unfortunately, "right" doesn't always equate to "correct" when it comes to the rules.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Jeff, being a former West Coast resident, and still having lots of friends there, everyone knows the Big Sky is a joke. The assignor picks pretty people based on how they look physically, in the hopes that she can "train" them. She is so overbearing on the officials that many try directly for the WCC/WAC/Pac-10 and skip the Big Sky on the way up.

No, actually your post is a joke. The Big Sky tryout camp generally sells out in less than an hour. Some incredible refs would give their eye teeth to get into that league. Several excellent Pac-10 officials work the Big Sky.

From what I have heard, the official closest to the play knew the time-out request was well prior to the horn and was choosing to ignore it. To me, that is mistake #1. Many officials have the philosophy to let the horn run out rather than stepping up and making the tough call. I disagree with that philosophy, but I am generally outvoted when that discussion comes up.

Another "philosophy" here on the West Coast with many college officials is to NEVER tell the teams how many time-outs they have. To me, preventative officiating means that we tell the players and the coaches when they come out of their huddle that they are out of time-outs. That usually prevents the nightmare that happened here. But hey, I get outvoted on that one too.

IMO, as long as there are assignors who preach their own philosophies rather than letting players decide games, officials are always going to get themselves into trouble by trying to do what they think their assignors would want rather than just officiating the game that presents itself.

I heard the editor of Referee Magazine speak once and he referred to assignors like that as "power brokers" who think they have a higher vision of what the game should be rather than sticking to the rules. He said it's very damaging to the integrity of the game.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by zebraman

No, actually your post is a joke. The Big Sky tryout camp generally sells out in less than an hour. Some incredible refs would give their eye teeth to get into that league. Several excellent Pac-10 officials work the Big Sky.

I'm sure that any open tryout for a D-1 conference would sell out in an hour. But then again, nobody else does that. It's a money grab. No disrespect to the guys who work that conference, but I'm fairly certain that if they had other choices, they'd take them. Glad you went to that camp, though. Going again?

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

I'm sure that any open tryout for a D-1 conference would sell out in an hour. But then again, nobody else does that. It's a money grab. No disrespect to the guys who work that conference, but I'm fairly certain that if they had other choices, they'd take them. Glad you went to that camp, though. Going again?

Never been to the camp. I know guys who have. Only the best of the best get picked up for D-1, especially in the Northwest where there aren't as many opportunities (including D-1) as there are in many other parts of the country. No disrespect, but the have-nots always want want the "haves" have.

[tomegun]

Unless something has changed in recent years:

1. The Big Sky camp does not "sell out" in less than an hour.
2. The west coast, like almost ever other area, does not always hire the best of the best for D1. I know this for a fact.