UO-WSU New Year's Eve 2-OT Game
 

Seems to me like the media & fans are blowing this out of proportion.

I'll let the articles do all the talking.

Cougs? celebration comes bit too early | Spokesman.com | Jan 1, 2010

Controversy Surrounds WSU Loss - KNDO/KNDU Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA |

Cougs come back, then let it get away: ‘It takes your heart out’ | College Sports - The News Tribune | Seattle-Tacoma News, Weather, Sports, Jobs, Homes and Cars | South Puget Sound's Destination

Ducks Waddle Past WSU in 2OT Kitsap Sun

Pac-10 Referees Give Holiday Gift To Oregon - College Basketball - Rivals.com

College Sports | Ducks stuns Cougars in double overtime | Pac-10 Roundup | Seattle Times Newspaper

It seems to me that no one has an understanding concerning the rules of the game. The game was not over, nor had anyone requested a timeout.

I already posted this in another thread, but...


Look for the kid from the student section! He's the one in the red T-shirt and blue jeans. :D

YouTube - NVECapture.0008.mpg

ESPN points out the kid coming out of the stands, but it seems like no one mentions the one player removing his shirt, except for ESPN in the video where it's highlighting the kid coming out of the stands.

Also if I remembered from the video, there were 2-3 WSU Bench Personnel that ran onto the floor after the made shot. Which is why the Technical was assessed, correct?

This is precisely the reason for the T. A few years ago the NCAA determined that the interuption put the inbounding team at a disadvantage.

It used to be that most teams would call TO after a score to set up a play. With the stoppage of the clock after each made basket (under 1 minute), it was not always the desire of the inbounding team to request a TO. The teams would practice this type of scenario, and have a play ready run to take advantage of the confusion by the players on the court. The "rushing" on the court by bench personnel interfered with this and negated the opportunity by the inbounding team.

Since it was unlikely for officials to penalize the bench personnel that would come onto the floor they would have everyone go back to the bench, put the correct time on the clock, and start the play again. While this was going on both teams would be treating this situation as a TO that was not intended. This also prolonged games in a way was not appealing to the NCAA.

I don't know that the NCAA rule on "removing the shirt in the visual confines of the playing court" is the same as the FED rule. I guess I'll have to get out my rule book (only the case book is handy at the moment).

A.R. 257 "when the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored." Didn't see the play, so I don't know if the team was hindered by the celebration.

Let's just say the thrower could not have inbounded the ball immediately. No timeout was requested by either team.

Bob, I've got a link below for you that shows the play. This feed of it was done by a person with a DVR that pauses then rewinds to see things a bit closer. Concerning the player removing the shirt & the fan coming out onto the floor, there is a period where it gets paused as well as shown in slow motion.

YouTube - NVECapture.0008.mpg (UO-WSU New Year's Eve game 2OT)

There's a link above. If Bob wanted to watch it, he'd have done so already.

All the links I initially posted are from newspaper articles or are text articles.

The link showing the article from KNDU, if I remember right, does have a video attached but it shows so fast that details can't be seen so easily.

But I posted the same video link that you just did back in post #2.

I didn't say you posted it.

I'd be upset too if I had to spend my New Year's Eve in Pullman.

Ducks sweep in Washington!! :D And they ******* in Pasadena. :mad:

They came onto the court. T'em up. John Adams (NCAA D-1 Supervisor) brought the hammer down a couple weeks ago on bad court behavior to conference coordinators. Guess the message was heard.

I've looked at the clip several times - IMHO the officiating crew got it right. Agree it was a tough break for WSU, but it did interfere with the other team's ability to get the ball into play - that's why the rule is there.....

Care to post the memo?

Sorry, Nevada,

I posted the link before looking, my bad.

Tim,

I'm not arguing about the call. I know they called it right. It's the media & some other fans (those that have no real understanding of the rules/regulations) that are saying that WSU got cheated out of the victory.

And if they hadn't called it, all the other team's papers would be saying that the "no call" cheated them out of a victory. It goes with the territory. :shrug:

Very true, as like you mentioned, if the call hadn't been made the media that covers UO Athletics would of been saying the same things & the UO fans would be thinking/saying the same things.

Which is why we don't make calls based on what the media/school/coach/players will think.

What does this have to do with anything?

Agreed! Calls should be made in accordance with the rules. I don't particularly care what the media/school/coach/players think - it's simply not relevant......

1. It is amusing.
2. It clearly shows a fan coming onto the court during game action, even though the ball was dead following the made goal.
3. Had the team member for WSU not coming running onto the court as well, it would have been very interesting to see how the officials dealt with the situation, especially if the fan got in the way of the players from the opposing team.

A couple of follow-up articles concerning the game. The first one is from the sports editor for the Tri-City Herald.

An interesting take on WSU's costly "T" - Sports: Eric Degerman | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

The 2nd article is referenced in the article above.

3-Pointers: College hoops' technical foul rule a travesty - Mike DeCourcy - College Basketball - Sporting News

3 steps - count the basket and one
 

does not #11 take 3 steps to the basket at the end...no travel call?

This ruling was incorrect...

Per the AR 272 in the NCAA casebook

When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored.

This ruling was absolutely correct. They were unable to inbound the ball at this point. Had they called a timeout, you'd be correct.

Snaq - No disrespect, but I will accept the interpretation from the NCAA.

From 1/5/10 bulletin from Ed Bilik:

When a delay by a jubilant follower(s) or bench personnel before player activity has been terminated does not
prevent the ball from being put in play promptly or does not interfere with continuous play, the delay shall be
ignored, order shall be restored and play shall be resumed

If you watch the tape, Oregon did not make any attempt to inbound the ball prior to the whistle for the technical foul.

I don't take anything here as disrespectful, but I appreciate the gesture.

Did this bulletin claim elsewhere that the officials were incorrect? I did watch the tape, and you'll see one OR player start running to get in position to take a throw-in pass. They were not going to call time out. I did notice the player with the ball didn't run to throw it in, but it could be for any variety of reasons.

The fact is, unless they request a TO, he has a short time to get the ball in play. There were too many players on the court at this point, and the resulting confusion explains the hesitation, IMO.

Again, if the bulletin claims the officials were not correct, fine. Otherwise, I stand by my opinion.

High School Celebrations ???
 

What's our recourse in a NFHS game, for any, and all, situations similar to those mentioned in this NCAA statement?

Update!!!
 

Not according to the people who matter! Namely those who run the PAC-10 Conference.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Updated: January 21, 2010, 7:13 PM ET
Disputed foul in Oregon game will stand


<cite class="source"> Associated Press
</cite>

<!-- end mod-article-title --> <!-- begin story body --> SPOKANE, Wash. -- A controversial technical foul that cost Washington State a basketball victory over Oregon will not be overturned.
WSU athletic director Jim Sterk said a review of the call by the Pacific-10 Conference concluded the foul call was correct and Oregon's win would stand.
Washington State appeared to have won the Dec. 31 game in Pullman when they scored with 0.3 of a second left in the first overtime, and several WSU bench players and at least one fan stepped onto the court.
The game officials ruled that stepping onto the court prevented continuous play, and awarded Oregon a technical foul and two free throws. The free throws tied the game and the Ducks won in the second overtime.
Sterk said the Cougars have no other recourse.

Glad to see they were backed up. That's how I saw the video.