Big Sky Suspends 3 Men's Officials

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.