After browing through the talk in the slums, I saw the topic on the end of the game situation where Donovan was PO'd about the Creighton players on the board. That reminded me of what stuck out in my mind of the last few sec's of that game and that was the five second call on the inbounds play. I was very surprised to see it called, not at all saying it was not a good call so don't jump my arse. It just seemed that the player was trying to call timeout when the official blew the whistle and even if he called it before the player wanted the timeout, I don't know how he runs up and down the court with those things he's draggin between his feet, if you know what I mean. I am just accustomed to seeing so many non-calls at the end of the game and them being justified by the "let the players decide" philosophy that it really shocked me to see it called. Along the same line as the intentional foul called in the SIU-GA game at the end. It was definitely a good call and I think I even would have sacked up and got that one. Any comments?

It was a good call. It was also very strong of Mike Wood not to whack Jim Harrick, even though he did everything he possibly could to get one in the last 15 seconds. I'm sure Mike knows that the call and the no-call were necessary for him to continue to work in the tournament.

Yes, and IMHO, that part is unfortunate. I understand it, but I would hate to have to weigh making a call with my advancement in the tournament. I think that is the cause of some bad no-calls late in the games in college. I don't think you want to make a call to decide a game, but sometimes by not calling a foul you are doing just that. Overall, I have felt that the officiating has been excellent in every game I have watched. It seems much better than it was last year, though I am sure that is just my perception.

The intentional foul was the correct call, no matter what the situation, regular season or tournament. And, even in a regular season game, I think most NCAA officials would be reluctant to call a T in such a close game with so little time remaining. You definitely won't see a T when somebody's going home. We saw that in the Creighton-Florida game.

Bench players, not subs?
 

TH,

You were correct about when the players ran onto the court, but it was not subs, it was bench players. But did Florida not get and request a timeout? If they did, then I do not see a reason to give a T. But I could be wrong.

Peace

Re: Bench players, not subs?
 

Wrong again. I never said players ran onto the floor. I said "...several subs from the Creighton bench ran onto the floor..." Subs are bench personnel until they enter the game. Then they become players. There's no such thing as "bench players." They're are no players on the bench.

4-34-1
Players are any one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.

4-34-2
Bench personnel are all individuals who are part of or affiliated with a team, including, but not limited to: substitutes, coaches, manager(s) and statistician(s).

Do you need some sleep?
 

Tony, I am not giving you a test. :eek: This is not about specific wording. You claimed that subs were coming on the floor and it was not subs that I saw.

You still did not answer my question. Did or did not Florida call a timeout. If they did I really do not think you have a T here. Or at least I would not see a common sense justification for it.

I you sure that I am the one that needs to relax? I am just asking about what I saw. And I saw 3 players come directly off the bench and celebrate with the young man that hit that terrific shot.

Sorry I asked.

Peace

No one said you were giving a test. No one said you needed to relax. You simply posted incorrectly, again. There's no such thing as "bench players." The subs ran from the Creighton bench, onto the playing floor.

Good night. :o Zzzzzzzzzzzz!

It is what you implied.
 

You sound like my ex-girlfriend, that is why she is my ex.

I am not saying you said anything, it is what you implied. Tony, I am not trying to give a damn definition. You know what the hell I am talking about. Bench players, bench personnel, whoever you want to call them did run onto the court. And they were not subbing into the game.

I know what I said, I just was not trying to be technical, that is all. :)

Peace

I originally posted the following in the other discussion board and a later posting answered my question.

"I think that the better way to look at this play is for the officials to be looking for a time-out request from Billy Donovan as soon as Creighton scored so the Florida can set up an inbounds play. Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Florida request and was granted a time-out?"


The answer I received was that Florida had indeed requested and granted a time-out after Creighton scored.

Now, everybody knows what a stickler I am about the rules, but I think that the officials handled this situation correctly. I read somewhere that Billy Donovan is becoming Florida's cheif whinner now that Steve Spurier (a fraternity brother of mine) has left. I do not know about that, but I agree with my sister (a graduate of the Univ. of Miami), that the real reason the Florida stopped playing UM in football is that the Gators got tired of getting beat. Go 'Canes!

Mark, I'm not saying that they were right or wrong for not whistling a T. I simply stated, "You definitely won't see a T when somebody's going home. We saw that in the Creighton-Florida game." In such a situation, most D-1 tournament officials, are not going to call T that sends a team home. Right or wrong, they'll let the play on the floor decide the game.

With regards to the play, Hank Nichols said a T should not have been called because the subs that ran onto the floor did not interfere with the play. He did not say a T should not have been called because a TO was requested. Now, which reason would make more sense? "They didn't interfere with the play," is very weak. Your argument that a TO was requested makes more sense. So, if that's the case, why didn't Hank use it? Also, I'm not sure when FL requested TO. With Creighton running onto the floor, the FL players appeared to think the game was over. Donovan was arguing for the T with the trail. No timeout was signalled prior to the "running of the Creightons." So, did someone who saw the game know when the request was actually made and granted? Or does that matter?

The first time the camera panned on Donavan he was angrily yelling for a timeout. Whether he was doing that before they ran on the court or after, I couldn't tell.