Big Sky Suspends 3 Men's Officials

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

This press release and the NCAA rulebook tend to indicate that any one of the officials can go look at the monitor. Who's the final arbiter on whether you go to TV or not, though? What if U1 thinks the crew should review something, but R says they shouldn't?

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.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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.

@ 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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

@ 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.

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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?

[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...

[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.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

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?

On the whistle. The ball doesn't become dead until the whistle blows. The request time doesn't mean anything. It's when the T/O is granted, whistle blown. In the OP if they would've went to the monitor and were able to see/hear that the whistle happened with time on the clock then they would have to add time, grant the T/O and penalize with the "T" & continue @ POI.

[Gimlet25id]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

Unfortunately this isn't a "SHALL" monitor play, it is a "MAY"... 2-13-2 C3. The "SHALL " plays are fighting, foul @ expiration, made basket @ end of regulation. According to the CCA Manual it is up to the "R" to initiate the monitor review while the "U's" are explaining what is going on to both coaches.

If you have a play that you believe is re viewable then the proper procedure is to relay that information to the "R." The "R" will confirm that the play is re viewable then go to the table and initiate the review. The "R" dones the headphones while reviewing the play with the partner(s) (usually the partner who had the in question play while the other is keeping an eye on the players & floor.)

If in the OP the "R" says that he is sure that the whistle was @ the horn or after, and that they are going to ignore the T/O and go OT then the "U's" should state that they should be go to the monitor to check the time. If the "R" still disagrees then the "U's" can say that they disagree and that they are sure that they should go to check for the timing mistake. IMO, if the "R" still disagree (Not that they would) then the "U(s)" have done what they could and have said that they disagree and gave the proper information. If the "R" doesn't take it then that would be on them.

I just can't imagine a "R" disagreeing with his partners if they were to have said, "we should be going to the monitor to check the time." What sounds like happened is that the "R" who made the call said he knew that the whistle was @ the horn so they were going OT & neither one of the partners stepped up and said that they should be going to the monitor to check for a timing error. This, IMO, is probably why they all lost a game.

According to the CCA Manual it is upto the "R" to make the final ruling on a reviewed play. Although there is nothing in the CCA manual that says a "U" can't initiate the monitor review it just wouldn't be recommended if for some unknown reason the "R" doesn't think the play is re viewable. All the partner can do is emphatically state that he/she knows that they should be going to the monitor. If that would have happened I'm sure the "R" would've went. It just doesn't sound like from the read that is what happened.

I don't @ all agree with the fact that they didn't go to the monitor be sure. I had a supervisor tell me once that even if you know you are 100% correct why wouldn't you still use the monitor, if it was available, to concrete the ruling? If you have a play that "may" be looked @, then look @ it to be sure. That is what this crew should've done, imo. If the "U(s)" would've stepped up and made sure that they reviewed the play then we wouldn't be discussing this right now. Someone missed the chance to save the crew.

Edit: After reading the article once more I can see where this could be a "SHALL" review since one of the officials might have, according to the OP, known that the team was out of T/O's. This could be defined as foul @ the expiration of time since the granted T/O would result in a "T." However I do believe they could've went to the monitor no matter what to check and see if there was time on the clock when the T/O was granted.