Here's a switch

[jkohls]

Did anyone else catch Martin's comment to the official near the end of the 1st OT? A KS player gained possession and there was "marginal" contact as he made a clean pass to Clemente. The foul was called, putting the passer on the line, where he missed 1 of 2, allowing X the opportunity to tie it up. Martin's comment was "You'll make that call, but not the one before?" Obviously, he would have rather had Clemente on the line. He has a point in that KS was put at a disadvantage by making that call, when not making it would have forced X to foul a better FT shooter.

I don't disagree with the no-call or the quick whistle on the second call. It does raise the question that others have discussed as to how these calls are made based on the "strategy" employed by a leading or trailing team.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jkohls

Did anyone else catch Martin's comment to the official near the end of the 1st OT? A KS player gained possession and there was "marginal" contact as he made a clean pass to Clemente. The foul was called, putting the passer on the line, where he missed 1 of 2, allowing X the opportunity to tie it up. Martin's comment was "You'll make that call, but not the one before?" Obviously, he would have rather had Clemente on the line. He has a point in that KS was put at a disadvantage by making that call, when not making it would have forced X to foul a better FT shooter.

I don't disagree with the no-call or the quick whistle on the second call. It does raise the question that others have discussed as to how these calls are made based on the "strategy" employed by a leading or trailing team.

Paralysis by analysis......

The correct answer is that the official thought that one was a foul and the other one wasn't. That's how the guys at this level make those calls based on "stategy" or whatever. They use their judgment. And if somebody higher up the food chain doesn't like or agree with the bulk of their judgments, they won't be back next year to make any more judgments.

All Martin was doing was second-guessing the official. He has to though; I think that it's written somewhere in the NCAA Coaches Manual as being mandatory. All the official does in cases like this is nod his head and let it go in one ear and out the other.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Paralysis by analysis......

The correct answer is that the official thought that one was a foul and the other one wasn't. That's how the guys at this level make those calls based on "stategy" or whatever. They use their judgment. And if somebody higher up the food chain doesn't like or agree with the bulk of their judgments, they won't be back next year to make any more judgments.

They will not advance, next year is a different slate. At least that is what they tell us. Ask Jamie Lucie (spelling sounds like Lucky).

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They will not advance, next year is a different slate. At least that is what they tell us. Ask Jamie Lucie (spelling sounds like Lucky).

Peace

It is "Luckie." Did something happen with him this year or last?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

It is "Luckie." Did something happen with him this year or last?

Remember that situation where in the Regional Finals a call was made where a call was made by the Lead official on top of 3 point line and we all debated if the call was correct or not? Well he was the officials that made the call and according to some information, he was not moved on because of that call. But as you can see he is still working the tournament this year. And probably will go farther than he did last year barring a call that might be perceived as not right.

Peace