Tim Higgins

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Walton had good reason to not call the OOB but there was no good reason to not call the traveling...that was his call and his PCA. Unless he's heard a horn or a whistle, he has to assume that the player is still inbounds and that there is time on the clock and make that call.

It would be convenient to try to lay blame on any one or two of the crew but in reality, all three made errors on that play.

After St. John's steals the ball Walton starts running towards SJ's frontcourt but takes his eyes off the player and looks at the clock. When he looks back the player is already OOB and in the midst chucking the ball up in the air. I don't think Earl knew what the hell was going on at that point. He's probably thinking "I hope someone blew a whistle"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

After St. John's steals the ball Walton starts running towards SJ's frontcourt but takes his eyes off the player and looks at the clock. When he looks back the player is already OOB and in the midst chucking the ball up in the air. I don't think Earl knew what the hell was going on at that point. He's probably thinking "I hope someone blew a whistle"

The perfect storm, it seems, for really good officials to miss a seemingly easy call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

After St. John's steals the ball Walton starts running towards SJ's frontcourt but takes his eyes off the player and looks at the clock. When he looks back the player is already OOB and in the midst chucking the ball up in the air. I don't think Earl knew what the hell was going on at that point. He's probably thinking "I hope someone blew a whistle"

That may be what he did but in doing so he took his eyes off THE play in HIS PCA....not usually a good idea.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That may be what he did but in doing so he took his eyes off THE play in HIS PCA....not usually a good idea.

Not saying it was. Just noting another contributary action to what went wrong.

[JRutledge]

Who cares about the darn travel? That pales in comparison to the out of bounds call that does not take an issue of when the player might have controlled the ball. We miss travels all the time. We should not miss a player stepping on the line ever that clearly. Now was that a mistake? Of course it was, but I can get over a missed travel as I am sure there were other plays during that game we could argue was a travel, but can we miss an out of bounds? Heck no. We cannot even agree when the player had the darn ball. But we know the player stepped on the line.

Peace

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who cares about the darn travel? That pales in comparison to the out of bounds call that does not take an issue of when the player might have controlled the ball. We miss travels all the time. We should not miss a player stepping on the line ever that clearly. Now was that a mistake? Of course it was, but I can get over a missed travel as I am sure there were other plays during that game we could argue was a travel, but can we miss an out of bounds? Heck no. We cannot even agree when the player had the darn ball. But we know the player stepped on the line.

Peace

Okay, I think I finally understand the source of our disagreement. You think that the "travel" was close. And I think that the "travel" was beyond obvious.

I'm just glad that I think I understand your argument now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Okay, I think I finally understand the source of our disagreement. You think that the "travel" was close. And I think that the "travel" was beyond obvious.

I'm just glad that I think I understand your argument now.

Actually if you need to understand something, then you have not been listening to what I have been saying at all. Travels are always judgment calls and can be debated. You cannot easily debate a foot on the line so clearly out of bounds like this one.

If you think the travel was obvious, what tape were you looking at?

Peace

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually if you need to understand something, then you have not been listening to what I have been saying at all. Travels are always judgment calls and can be debated. You cannot easily debate a foot on the line so clearly out of bounds like this one.

If you think the travel was obvious, what tape were you looking at?

Peace

And if your writing in some of your previous posts in this thread had been one-tenth as clear as the above, you wouldn't have had multiple asking you what the hell you were talking about.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Okay, I think I finally understand the source of our disagreement. You think that the "travel" was close. And I think that the "travel" was beyond obvious.

I'm just glad that I think I understand your argument now.

You can't have both, when he travelled, he was OB, I agree with Jeff. travels can be open to scrutiny, OB is OB.