Mass High School Tourney problems
 

I have been lurking on this board for a long time and came across this story. What do you think would be the proper decision?

link
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/h...lbb&position=3

Double dip for Ipswich
By Dan Ventura
Friday, February 29, 2008 - Added 13h ago
+ Recent Articles + Recent Blog Entries + Email + Bio Boston Herald Sports Reporter
Danny Ventura has been the Herald's authority on high school sports for 15 years. He also covers the Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics and college sports.
E-mail Printable (0) Comments Text size Share (5) Rate
North girls basketball tournament director Tony Romano insisted no one from the MIAA issued any edicts declaring Ipswich the winner of Tuesday’s controversial 52-51 loss to Watertown.

The story making the rounds was that the MIAA admitted an error was made in the final seconds of the game and awarded Ipswich the victory but stopped short of allowing the Tigers to play in tomorrow night’s Division 3 North quarterfinal against Winthrop.

“I am the tournament director and I haven’t issued any statements,” said Romano. “The only people above me are the MIAA directors and they have not issed any statements on this. It would be inappropriate for us to review any judgments made by game officials because they are subjective.”

The craziness began when Lyndsay French hit a 3-point shot with 3.8 seconds to play, which would have given the Tigers a 54-52 lead. The officials waved the shot off, saying Ipswich coach Mandy Zegarowski called a timeout prior to the basket.

The problem began when more than three seconds elapsed between French’s basket and the timeout, leaving the Tigers with just 0.3 seconds on the clock. Despite the protests of Zegarowski, officials refused to put time back on the clock.

Amber Smith then scored off the inbounds play to give the Tigers what would have been a 53-52 win.

The game officials, however, ruled Smith’s shot was released after the buzzer, citing the tap rule, and the Red Raiders had the upset.

I guarantee you that no official made that statement in bold.

Wow, 3.5 seconds to "MENTALLY" :D process the timeout and getting air in the whistle, who was calling that game?

If coach requested a timeout prior to the release of the shot, it wouldn't count. Good call.
If no official saw time run off the clock after the whistle, then the officials cannot, by rule, add time to the clock. Good call.
With .3 seconds left, a player cannot catch and shoot, by rule. Good call.
Three for three.

Chances are the timer didn't hear the whistle due to crowd noise, and none of the officials saw any time come off the clock because they were watching action. Isn't MA using 2-whistle crews early in the postseason due to their inane postgame handshake requirement?

Do you think these officials stuck around for the post-game shake?

I can buy that. But... late in the game, shoot, anytime during the game, every time that whistle gets blown somebody (an official) needs to be looking at the clock.

I was thinking the same thing. Shoot when I first saw the title of the OP I thought somewhere in the post would be reference to the handshake monitoring.

from the story it really sounds like the refs messed up and let too much time run off the clock

Well, that just settles it, doesn't it?

Agreed, but there will be times when, for whatever reason, it doesn't happen. It's unfortunate that it happened here at the very end of the game.

I wonder if they stuck around for the teams' handshakes?

addendum............just read previous posts. I couldn't wait to post.

Let me check my magic 8 ball.




"Hell no!"

That finally got resolved. 3-person crews were assigned to all state tournament games.

they did stay for the beer and cookies the fans served after the game

More details from the local paper of the losing team: http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/sports/x1637133271#

Includes this: As you can imagine, the referees immediately went on the Ipswich “Ten Most Wanted” list, having to explain their call and be walked out of the gym with a police escort.

I think the losing coach was pretty classy in the interview. Can't really argue with the last line of this quote from her:

Score is 51-52 and there are three seconds on the clock. WITH cant a coach trust their experienced players to do the right thing. The players know what the score is and at that point need to win it or lose it on thier own.

I had a game earlier this year. 3 point ball game with 7 seconds left to go. second of 2 FT's by A ws missed. B grabs the ball comes up the floor. Everybody in the place knows that its a 3 or go home. Point guard gets ball and gets to top of key, as point guard starts up, my partner blows a whistle, Team B is calling time out. Whistle blew well before shot was away. The nearly uncontested 3 goes straight through the net... Coach then sets up one of the dunbest plays I have ever seen with 3 or so seconds on the clock and the shot doesnt even draw iron.

In the OP maybe one of the officials should have seen the clock but I see nothing by rule these guys did wrong. Coach should learn 1) to trust their players 2) and learn the rules. In her interview stated
even though it’s a correctable error. Oh really under what provision is this correctable?
The article claims the shooter hit the shot at 3.8... I wonder where they got that from the synchronized clock with the video feed?

Dont blame the officials for a stupid coaching mistake. She stated with .3 seconds she never would have called time out Oh really didnt I just see a Big Sky game that tried something along the same line?

Do you think she was actually looking at the clock? She also stated there must have been at least 2 seconds (nice even number)? Nice guess on reaction time... What we dont know as Paul Harvey called it the " rest of the story"...

Did the whistle blow correctly and the time so enthralled in a tight game forgot to shut the clock off? We'll never know..

No one watched the clock (not great game management but understandable given a one point game going to the buzzer. Who is not to say thy did not look up at that point in time and see the clock stopped?

No matter what I think it was handled right by rule, If the coaches dont like the rules they can
1) get Precisiontime on the floor (even that's not infallible)
2) ensure that every game has an official video feed with an appropriate DVR synchronized with the game clock with the appropriate courtside monitor ( go to the school district with that request...some schools can't get a second scoreboard)
3) Pay a proessional to run the standardized equipment
4) Change the rule to allow us to use the equipment.

Agree ...
 

I agree. I coached middle school basketball for over 25 years. My teams were always taught how to play transition basketball properly, outlet passes, steals, fast breaks, secondary breaks, etc. I never called a timeout late in the game in situations where we needed to score because I felt that we had a better chance to score when the other team was on the run, maybe they missed picking up a man, etc. I only called timeouts in this situation when the clock was stopped, i.e. out of bounds, violation, foul, etc. to gather my "troops" to make sure we knew what to do after the ball was put back into play, and, in some cases, to set up a "special" play.

Over 300 wins. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

If the official has definite knowledge of the time when he granted the time out, he can have the clock set to that time. It is not a "correctable error" under 2-10, but the clock can be set to the correct time. That is how I understood the coach's statement.

I have not been in that gym, so I don't know if it has one or two scoreboards and where it (or they) are located. Clock awareness in the final seconds matters. So does peeking at the coach to see if she wants a time out. But if I can't see the clock when I grant the time out...and if the timer and my partners can't hear the whistle because the gym is so loud...and a few seconds run off the clock before I see the actual time, there is nothing to do but leave the clock alone.

With under 5 seconds to go and a possible scoring play in progress, the last thing in the world that an official should be doing imo is peeking at a coach to see if he/she wants a TO. If you hear a TO request, that's when you peek at the coach.

That's what makes this play so damn difficult imo. The rulesmakers want an official to watch a last-second scoring play in progress in his area and simultaneously verify that a TO request is actually coming from the head coach....a head coach that is usually out of his sight line. The FED issued a POE in 2004-05 that directed us to visually confirm that any TO request is actually coming from a head coach before granting it.

In this particular case, the official upon hearing the TO request had to:
1) Confirm that the ball was still under player control when the request was made.
2) Visually confirm that the TO request was actually coming from the head coach.
3) Grant the request.
4) <b>then</b> check the game clock, if possible.
There has to be some kind of time lag during that sequence, especially if the player shot immediately after when you started to look at the head coach.

Stoopid rule. As typified in this game, it sureasheck can put the officials on the spot. If the TO wasn't granted and the 3-pointer had been missed, you'd still be reading about it in the papers too. That's because the coach would be screaming about not getting her TO and a few seconds for another shot.

Sometimes.....damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Jmhpoo.

3+4 can be done simultaneously. And in some cases, the official granting the TO can see the HC without moving their head much. For example: 3-person crew with Team A coach wanting a 2H TO and granted by C or T. IMO, a referee on the ball will understand some strategy and know when a coach's high interest is to request a TO. I'm just sayin' that some times, everything you need to do can happen rather quickly.

"Just my humble poo"? Ewwww.

Good Points ...
 

As Jurassic Referee said in his post "With under 5 seconds to go and a possible scoring play in progress, the last thing in the world that an official should be doing imo is peeking at a coach to see if he/she wants a TO." I agree, but BayStateRef makes two good points worth noting. Clock awareness in the last few seconds of a game is very important. Also, there are times when experienced officials know that they have to be ready to "take a peek at the coach", for example, after the opposing team has gone on a 8-0 run, after the opposing team has made a few steals in a row after switching to a press, after a score by their team near the end of a close game, etc.

Rookie officials should take note.

Very Stupid Rule ...
 

Jurassic Referee: Great post. You should make a copy of this post and send it to the NFHS. The newer officials on this Forum probably don't realize that there was a time when, by NFHS rule, only a player on the court, when their team had player control, could call a timeout. The five offensive players were always within the visual confines of the officials, even if there were just two officials, which made it a lot easier to grant time outs than the present procedure, as described by Jurassic Referee. It can be even more difficult to grant the request during a play where the officials are watching a "crazy" play, for example, player trapped in the corner against the division line, player picks up dribble, and pivots. We're looking for out of bounds, backcourt, travel, illegal dribble, personal foul, player control foul, etc., when a voice behind us says "Time out". Why won't the NFHS go back to the old rule?

Just my humble pissd-off opinion......

That play is an absolute killer when you're working 2-man and a quick double-team comes.

Stoopid monkeys.

Two solutions:
1. revoke the coaches requesting time-outs
2. get rid of 2-man

I wish it were the latter, however, the former is more likely.

Nfhs ???
 

Maybe the former is more likely than the latter, but I doubt that the former is going to happen. Officials have been complaining about the rule since its inception, and every year the NFHS ignores us.

However, they have reversed themselves in one key situation. They went from rebounders moving into the lane on the hit, to rebounders moving into the lane on the release, back to rebounders moving into the lane on the hit, on a free throw. I actually liked the release better.

Doubtful. There are still a lot of schools that don't want to pay for 3 officials (check local listings). Members of the NFHS would have fit if they got rid of 2-man.

Next year, you're gonna see the bottom spots left open like the NCAA Mens.

Really? Seems like a sudden change to me. Everything they ever said in their studies says they believe no advantage is gained by doing so.

Do you know their new reasoning JR?

It was on their rules questionaire they put out a while ago. But my guess is mostly that it's a fasion thing. And there will be a large number of respondants who will say they want to move the rebounders up just because the NCAA does it. It's the same mindless mentality that leads to wreck league players who will to fight you to the death to stand on the block. Like it matters. :rolleyes:

And some morons will be pontificating about how "if we're going to prepare athletes to compete at the next level then they need to playing by the same rules because it's too hard to make the adjustment when they get there." As if :rolleyes:

And it'll happen.

But you just watch. The rules about marking the lane lines will not change. Ever. Because the rules committee at least knows that soon enough somebody will want to change it all up again.

We were an experimental state this year for leaving the bottom block open. I didn't notice less or more contact but it sure appeared to give the non shooting team better rebounding position.

Why are you banging on the coach? She didn't bang on the officials. Her statement that is was a correctable error, while the wrong verbiage, is correct in that if an official had seen ?.? on the clock the time could have been corrected. And nowhere in the article did she claim the officials did anything wrong procedurially or rules-wise. Only that she feels her time-out came with more time on the clock than the officials ruled.

And that is a credible source? Of course the coach thinks their time out came earlier, but it did not according to the officials. She should have prepared her players to call timeout because that is likely where their focus was.

Coaches have just been too dumb to realize that this rule is not required, it is an option. Coaches are the only ones to complain when the rule does not benefit them.

Peace

My comments are not based on whether or not she criticized the officials. I personally do not care if she did or did not. But she is whining about the situation and if the rule was not the way it was, then she would have never been in that situation. And then just like other common sense things coach overlook, she should trust her players to call timeout instead of taking it upon herself to "save her team." There is nothing in the rule requiring a coach to call a timeout. It is only an option for them to do so.

An observation I am going to make. How do you expect officials to serve the game better if you only allow them to use a system during the post season and not during the regular season as well?

Peace

What source? It's the coach stating her opinion, acknowleging the officials saw it differently, and then accepting the consequences. They are more quotes from this coach concerning her players' future endeavors then there are concerning the play itself.

Why is the coach dumb just b/c her opinion of a play is different?

Did they ask the official what they saw? Do we have a quote as to why things turned out the way they did? Of course we do not. So taking only the coach's word on this is not the best thing to do if you want a real explanation.

Requesting a timeout for the coaches is not the only request that can be made. Players can make the same request. Officials are focused on players, not coaches. And when you have to take the focus of the officials off the players, you tend to cause problems like this where the clock might not be observed properly or a timeout is not granted in the right amount of time. That is why she is dumb along with every other coach that has stopped using their basic common sense because the rules give them an option.

Peace

Video of the play
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xsTm2nESj4

The quality is not perfect, and if you can look past the bias and fact errors, you can see this:

Black has the ball with 13.9 seconds to go, up by one point.
Time out is called and black has throw-in on end line.
White steals the ball.
Much scrambling.
Whistle (for time out) & 3-point shot attempt at roughly the same time.
There are about 3.5 seconds on the clock when the shot is attempted.
Clock runs down to 0.3 seconds while shot is in the air.

Three-person crew. Trail is right next to home bench and grants the time out. Scoreboard is on wall to the left of the basket, on C's side.

So....if this is your game:

Did the crew handle it properly?

So she's dumb for following the rules? :confused:

Indeed. There are definitely problems with veteran high school officials, who only work a 2-person system all year, having to work a 3-person system for the state tournament.

Most tournament assignors try to get at least one college official on each crew, so one person has solid 3-person experience. But that does not always happen. I know of games where the most-seasoned official had exactly one game working a 3-person system (the one he worked two days before with a college guy.) There are special clinics offered by most officials' boards in February on 3-person mechanics, but a single clinic and working actual games are hardly equal.

The issue is money. Schools are not willing to pay an additional fee 20 times per year (10 boys and 10 girls) to have 3-person crews. This year, schools that were going to the tournament were encouraged to use 3-person crews in February as a "warm-up." I have not heard of any school that actually did.

How did that work out for her? ;)

Peace

Look, I don't know the coach personally, and due to geographical differences I'll probably never officiate 1 of her games. Yes she made a dumb choice (in hindsight), but to call her dumb is a personal insult. That's my only point.

Yup.

The time-out was granted while the calling team had player control. That's correct as per rule 5-8-3(a). The ball is now dead as per rule 6-7-5, which also means that you can't count the basket under rule 5-1-1. The timer screwed up. However, you can't correct the timing mistake though unless you have definite knowledge, as per rule 5-10.

The crew did everything right imo.

Right isn't always fair.

I agree - other than the expectation that the crew immediately look to the clock in a situation like this. They didn't, so everything after that was handled correctly.

Unfortunately, it could have been handled "more correctly" if the official granting the TO had looked immediately to the clock as he was granting it.

Getting that right would have taken this crew from "correct" to "super-correct"... :D

really? What if the gym was so noisy the other officials didn't hear the whistle?

I do recall that I called "coaches" dumb for limiting how timeouts are called based on this rule. If that bothers you then that is your problem, because I would say the same thing to her face and to a room full of coaches. The rule does not require only coaches to request a timeout, the rules does allow players to make the same request. It is stupid when you know officials are not looking at you the same why they are with the player.

Peace