Bulter Game - taking time off the clock

[Seddy]

From what I can tell, they got the call right. That being said, I would have liked to have heard Xavier's Chris Mack's post-game press conference.

[zeedonk]

I saw the end of the game- lots of stuff going on. What is the theory/rule that allows the officials to take time off the clock after the clock stopped, then started, then the time out with 1.2 seconds left?

I understand the explanation- clock stopped for 1.3 seconds, therefore we subtract 1.3 from 1.2 (time left on the clock at time out)- game over.

I understand the use of replay, but the stopwatch idea seems to have saved the day. Does the alternate official or the scorer always have one in NCAA D-1 (or other levels)?

What do we do if this is NFHS? Most of us won't have monitors. I suspect if we officials even notice the brief clock stoppage with all else going on at 14.7, I don't think we could estimate the amount of time, and would probably just play on at 1.2.

[StripesOhio]

Butler is in Indianapolis.

From the Horizon League Network Blog:


Official Referee Explanation of the Butler-Xavier Game

Adam Coppinger · December 19, 2009

Here is the official explanation of the ruling at the end of the Butler-Xavier game:


Statement From Today’s Game Officials

The game clock was erroneously stopped at 14.7 seconds. When we put (on) the stopwatch to see how long the clock had erroneously stopped, 1.3 seconds had elapsed.

The shot by the Butler player was released at 1.8 seconds. The ball went through the net at 1.2 seconds and the clock stopped correctly.

Because we lost 1.3 seconds, that time is deducted from the remaining 1.2 seconds, officially ending the game

This release was handed to all members of the media following the conclusion of today’s game.

We’ll have plenty more from this game, and the incredible finish at Cleveland State, on this very blog over the next few days. Be sure to check back for our thoughts on these insane finishes.

Tags: Butler - Men's Basketball · Horizon League - Men's Basketball


===

From my understanding, they did EXACTLY what was supposed to be done.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by StripesOhio

Butler is in Indianapolis.

I know Butler is in Indianapolis. My question was where is Bulter?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

My question was where is Bulter?

He's the one on the upper left:

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

He's the one on the upper left:

Billy, when is the last time you were smitten with a furled umbrella?

Don't you know that the term "gentleman's gentleman" was preferred, no, demanded by Mr. French?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by StripesOhio

Butler is in Indianapolis.

From the Horizon League Network Blog:


Official Referee Explanation of the Butler-Xavier Game

Adam Coppinger · December 19, 2009

Here is the official explanation of the ruling at the end of the Butler-Xavier game:


Statement From Today’s Game Officials

The game clock was erroneously stopped at 14.7 seconds. When we put (on) the stopwatch to see how long the clock had erroneously stopped, 1.3 seconds had elapsed.

The shot by the Butler player was released at 1.8 seconds. The ball went through the net at 1.2 seconds and the clock stopped correctly.

Because we lost 1.3 seconds, that time is deducted from the remaining 1.2 seconds, officially ending the game

This release was handed to all members of the media following the conclusion of today’s game.

We’ll have plenty more from this game, and the incredible finish at Cleveland State, on this very blog over the next few days. Be sure to check back for our thoughts on these insane finishes.

Tags: Butler - Men's Basketball · Horizon League - Men's Basketball


===



From my understanding, they did EXACTLY what was supposed to be done.

Would have been interesting to see if they would have waved the shot off if it had been TAKEN with 1.2 seconds remaining by the stop watch.

[TonyT]

Originally Posted by Seddy

From what I can tell, they got the call right. That being said, I would have liked to have heard Xavier's Chris Mack's post-game press conference.

The players and coaches are going by the time left on the scoreboard. So now you are telling me that they are basically saying when the clock SHOWED 2 seconds the game was really OVER. Think about this and use COMMON SENSE. There is NO WAY you take time off the clock after they have played for 15 seconds. You let them play it out. After the basket X should of had about 1.2 seconds to in bound the ball. That game should of never ending like that.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by TonyT

The players and coaches are going by the time left on the scoreboard. So now you are telling me that they are basically saying when the clock SHOWED 2 seconds the game was really OVER. Think about this and use COMMON SENSE. There is NO WAY you take time off the clock after they have played for 15 seconds. You let them play it out. After the basket X should of had about 1.2 seconds to in bound the ball. That game should of never ending like that.

No, the game was over when there was 1.3 seconds on the clock. The Butler player's shot had left his hand with 1.8 seconds on the clock (or .5 adjusted time) and went through the net with 1.2 (or .1 after time would have expired).

The clock stopped with 14.7 seconds left for 1.3 seconds, so yes the officials had full jurisdiction to adjust the clock to the correct time. It is a tough way to lose a game because everyone is thinking there is still time left on the clock. Had the Butler player shot the ball with 1.1 seconds on the clock and the officials reviewed the play and discovered that the shot shouldn't have counted and Xavier won, I doubt you'd feel as strongly as to how the game should have ended.

[TonyT]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

No, the game was over when there was 1.3 seconds on the clock. The Butler player's shot had left his hand with 1.8 seconds on the clock (or .5 adjusted time) and went through the net with 1.2 (or .1 after time would have expired).

The clock stopped with 14.7 seconds left for 1.3 seconds, so yes the officials had full jurisdiction to adjust the clock to the correct time. It is a tough way to lose a game because everyone is thinking there is still time left on the clock. Had the Butler player shot the ball with 1.1 seconds on the clock and the officials reviewed the play and discovered that the shot shouldn't have counted and Xavier won, I doubt you'd feel as strongly as to how the game should have ended.

NO NO NO!!!! You can't do that. You are talking about something that happened 15 seconds earlier and had no affect on the game. The players are going by the scoreboard can't you see that. Stick that stop watch where the sun don't shine. Make all the excuses you want but this was mis handled.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TonyT

NO NO NO!!!! You can't do that. You are talking about something that happened 15 seconds earlier and had no affect on the game. The players are going by the scoreboard can't you see that. Stick that stop watch where the sun don't shine. Make all the excuses you want but this was mis handled.

I don't know how the NCAA rule reads in this matter, but I think it is undeniable that this is potentially unfair to one team for this reason.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't know how the NCAA rule reads in this matter, but I think it is undeniable that this is potentially unfair to one team for this reason.

While it feels unfair, what would be the proper remedy? In this instance it would seem like the "right" thing to do would be to leave the 1.2 on the clock and play out the game. However, had the stoppage happened with 5 seconds, or 2 seconds left, or 0.2 seconds left, what then? How do we decide when to take the time off and when we shouldn't?

The clock change benefited Butler. But had the last shot come with .8 instead of 1.8 showing, it would have hurt Butler as they'd have cancelled the shot. This is one of those rules that is unfair to one team or the other only based on how the play actually unfolds.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

While it feels unfair, what would be the proper remedy? In this instance it would seem like the "right" thing to do would be to leave the 1.2 on the clock and play out the game. However, had the stoppage happened with 5 seconds, or 2 seconds left, or 0.2 seconds left, what then? How do we decide when to take the time off and when we shouldn't?

The clock change benefited Butler. But had the last shot come with .8 instead of 1.8 showing, it would have hurt Butler as they'd have cancelled the shot. This is one of those rules that is unfair to one team or the other only based on how the play actually unfolds.

If the mistake and the resulting adjustment had canceled the score, I see it as much more fair to replay the final 14.7 than to let this happen.

[gslefeb]

I think it is wrong to take time off the board. As in OT, can't take time off the clock if it was set to 8mins and there is less then 4 mins remaining in the OT.

Not sure scientifically if one can stop / start a stopwatch and be accurate to 0.1 secs. When would you start the stopwatch - when you see it freeze in the monitor? Then at least 0.1 would have elasped. When would you stop it? when it shows 14.6, obviously 0.1 would have elapsed.

Regarding fairness: What would have happened if 1.9 secs had been deemed the elapsed time? Would the shot not count? How can one determine if Butler would have shot sooner?

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

I think it is wrong to take time off the board. As in OT, can't take time off the clock if it was set to 8mins and there is less then 4 mins remaining in the OT.

But you have four minutes to fix that.....you better be able to find some break in play. This sequence didn't have any break in the action. What could they have done differently?

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Not sure scientifically if one can stop / start a stopwatch and be accurate to 0.1 secs. When would you start the stopwatch - when you see it freeze in the monitor? Then at least 0.1 would have elasped. When would you stop it? when it shows 14.6, obviously 0.1 would have elapsed.

I tried it six times....four times I got 1.4 once I got 1.5 and once doing my slowest start and quickest stop I got 1.3......maybe not scientific, but all less than 1.2.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Regarding fairness: What would have happened if 1.9 secs had been deemed the elapsed time? Would the shot not count? How can one determine if Butler would have shot sooner?

Yep, it wouldn't have counted.