Tim Higgins

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Adams seems like a jerk -- praising Burr (who as the trail missed this call) and essentially throwing the other two under the bus. What's really comical is that it sounds like he commented without even seeing the play.

I wouldn't say Adams is a jerk but I do agree that his comments were inappropriate. He should have "no commented" all 3 officials and saved his comments for Art Hyland.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I wouldn't say Adams is a jerk but I do agree that his comments were inappropriate. He should have "no commented" all 3 officials and saved his comments for Art Hyland.

I guess I wonder why Adams has an opinion at all. This is a *conference* matter and it would've been nice to see the conference supervisor interviewed instead of him. As long as officials are independent contractors and not employees of the NCAA, the only thing Adams can do is not hire these guys for the tourney.

What would you call someone who would make comments like this *without ever seeing the play or even a recording of the play*?

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

.

What would you call someone who would make comments like this *without ever seeing the play or even a recording of the play*?

A Sports radio call in host?

[APG]

I don't feel it's inappropriate for the coordinator of men's basketball to have a comment on the play if asked.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I don't feel it's inappropriate for the coordinator of men's basketball to have a comment on the play if asked.

Without seeing the play? The right thing would've been to say, "I'll have a comment after I see the video."

[APG]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Without seeing the play? The right thing would've been to say, "I'll have a comment after I see the video."

Well you said it was a conference matter and you would have rather the conference supervisor have comment. While it's totally acceptable for him to comment, I don't see a problem with John Adams having an opinion (I'm talking in general here. If it's true that he didn't see the play first, and I have a hard time believe that, then he should have waited to comment).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Well you said it was a conference matter and you would have rather the conference supervisor have comment. While it's totally acceptable for him to comment, I don't see a problem with John Adams having an opinion (I'm talking in general here. If it's true that he didn't see the play first, and I have a hard time believe that, then he should have waited to comment).

NCAA official head: Finish 'unacceptable' in St. John's win - ESPN

(The video specifically says Adams hadn't seen the play. He made his comments based on a description.)

Adams, reached by phone in Indianapolis where he is sequestered with the men's basketball selection committee for the remainder of the weekend, hadn't seen the video of the final seconds of the game but was going to discuss it with Big East coordinator of officials Art Hyland upon hearing the play-by-play of the final seconds.

"And then we'll notify the guys sometime Sunday if they're working or not," Adams said.

[APG]

Well he probably shouldn't have had a comment here though I guess one might argue you don't need to see a video of the play as it wasn't a judgement play rather a clear out of bounds violation.

I would rather him not comment until after seeing the video. Still, in general, I have no problem with Adams commenting on plays in addition to conference supervisors. Adams may be more accessible than most supervisors.

[Judtech]

Bilas just commented that Burris made the same "No Call' in Maui at the MSU/Uconn game (?) Anyone remember this?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Bilas just commented that Burris made the same "No Call' in Maui at the MSU/Uconn game (?) Anyone remember this?

But , if I recall correctly, a couple of years back when there was a bump in the backcourt in the last second of a tournament game (Georgetown vs. Somebody, maybe?) which caused a player to step out of bounds. The foul was called, the subsequent free throws were the winning margin, and Bilas said the whole thing should have been ignored.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But , if I recall correctly, a couple of years back when there was a bump in the backcourt in the last second of a tournament game (Georgetown vs. Somebody, maybe?) which caused a player to step out of bounds. The foul was called, the subsequent free throws were the winning margin, and Bilas said the whole thing should have been ignored.

Yes, the fanboys were blasting that call. It was G-Town/Villanova regular season game.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But , if I recall correctly, a couple of years back when there was a bump in the backcourt in the last second of a tournament game (Georgetown vs. Somebody, maybe?) which caused a player to step out of bounds. The foul was called, the subsequent free throws were the winning margin, and Bilas said the whole thing should have been ignored.

Not really. The game you're thinking of was Georgetown-Villanova two seasons ago. Bilas never even acknowledged the possibility that the foul had been called because the ball-handler was bumped out of bounds. Replays were ultimately inconclusive, but they did show Bob Donato in perfect position to referee the play. I'll go to my grave convinced that he called the foul because he saw the Georgetown player step out of bounds. Perfectly officiated play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

But , if I recall correctly, a couple of years back when there was a bump in the backcourt in the last second of a tournament game (Georgetown vs. Somebody, maybe?) which caused a player to step out of bounds. The foul was called, the subsequent free throws were the winning margin, and Bilas said the whole thing should have been ignored.

It was G'town vs. Villanova and it was not an NCAA tournament game.
It was a Big East game.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

Exactly ... There was NO TRAVEL. Can't somebody tell Digger Phelps and the gang this!

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have a travel when the players are out of bounds. And I did see it more than once.



The question is when did he actually have the ball? He knocked the ball down to the floor when he first had the ball.

....

And he said that 3 officials missed it. Three officials are not looking at this play. Maybe two of them were, but more likely 1 in this specific play.

Peace

It should have been either a travel, if inbounds, or an OOB violation.

The "travel" was obvious...after the dribble, the ball was caught, the player then stepped with the right, the left and then the right again....then thew the ball.

It wasn't actually traveling however since the left foot step was OOB....as was the last right foot step. But since the OOB violation wasn't called, the ball was still live and the traveling was still possible.

Either way, all 3 officials are at fault. The L and the T for the line coverage and the C for the travel....the C has the mid-court area from sideline to sideline in such situations and should have had the travel even if he couldn't (and shouldn't) know that the player was OOB.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It should have been either a travel, if inbounds, or an OOB violation.

The "travel" was obvious...after the dribble, the ball was caught, the player then stepped with the right, the left and then the right again....then thew the ball.

It wasn't actually traveling however since the left foot step was OOB....as was the last right foot step. But since the OOB violation wasn't called, the ball was still live and the traveling was still possible.

Actually he bounced the ball twice. The first time you could say he batted the ball away from ball handler and the second one was an actual dribble. Then he gathered the ball (this is judgment of course) and put his foot down on the division line. The second foot landed out of bounds. You are right that this could have been a travel of the out of bounds was not called, but that assumes that they knew the clock was still running in their minds.

Peace