Terrible lack of awareness
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bEgn-L8MKZQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Shot Clock Violation ???
 

Maybe one of the officials thought that the ball nicked bottom of the rim? That's the only explanation that I can come up with.

If so, they were terribly wrong.

What's the rule here with no replay? I'm assuming not blowing the play dead when the shot clock expires is not a correctable error?

Correct. If none of the officials knows what heppened, then what happened happens.

Perfect example of a game where the referees did play a huge impact on the outcome of the game.

If you're going to screw up, fine. Make it happen 3 minutes into the game. Not on the last play of the game to break a tie. Endings like this with play-off implications are what leads to lawsuits. And rightfully so, imho.

Rightful lawsuits? Really?!

Yeah, I would like to see an example of just ONE of these lawsuits. That's a ridiculous comment.

That said, also a ridiculously bad example of officiating where none of the three realized that was a shot clock violation with that time/score situation. AWFUL!

Mostly that was on the C....they had the perfect angle to see that it fell short. The L should have had no idea. The T probably didn't have the angle to see if it clipped the front of the rim or not.

That buzzer for the shot clock seems awfully quiet...even with an empty gym and the LED backboard lights, I suppose it's possible that the officials were so honed in on the ball, that they had no clue the shot clock went off.

I'll disagree.

With that time and score everyone should have an idea IMO. And the ball was well short of the rim.

It was the C's primary but when she didnt have anything, one of the other two should have stepped up, especially with the advantage of having a backboard LED.

There was one back during the high school football season. A team had to win by so many points to make the playoffs. They were winning near the end of the game but not up by enough to make the playoffs.

They ran a pass play. There was a foul by the defense during the down and it was unclear whether the pass was complete or incomplete. Now there were only a few seconds remaining on the clock. The offense then sets up for like a 45 yard field goal. If they get the points they will make the playoffs. The referee starts the clock on the ready for play (which may or may not have been correct). The clock runs out before the ball is snapped.

Because there was a foul by the defense during the last timed down of the period then the game should have been extended by one down. The officials ruled the game over.

There was some type of lawsuit filed saying that this team should have been be placed into the playoffs. I guess they just assumed that the HS team's odds of kicking a 45 yard field goal was about 100% :confused:

The lawsuit ended up going nowhere even though the officials obviously misapplied a rule. Lawsuits over officials getting a call incorrect are even more crazy. I can't believe that anyone believes that suing is the correct way to solve anything.

That happened not too long ago, and the judge tossed the case.

Yup. In a case like this, I am in support of rules changes that permit a change to the last play of a game.

We all know that the last play of the game was officiated grossly wrong. Cancel the hoop and go to overtime.

If a rules change submission needs a lawsuit to give it some legs, then I'm in favour of that lawsuit.

I know the economy is tough right now, and that may be a mitigating factor in the ability to do so, but for a play like this, it is easily solved with replay. An HD camcorder hooked up to a video monitor is about $500 here in my area. Schools likely have a capable monitor anyways, so all that is needed now is an HD camcorder. If a school has an AV group, then they likely have a camcorder too.

And wasn't this an NCAA game? Washington U, as in University? Doesn't NCAA have replay? Or is that for D1 only?

You're really in favor of having your butt hauled into court every time you work a game? Because once you open that floodgate, people will litigate every foul and violation you call, no matter the final point spread.

No, the referees should remain the final arbiter of the rules of the game and courts should continue to keep their noses out of it. After all, they have things that actually matter that they already can't get to without having to decide whether a shot grazed a rim or not.

If you don't want a referee's mistake at the end of a game to cost you a win, lead by more than 4 points at the end.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm in favour of replay. If it takes a court case to expose the need for replay, then I'm for the court case.

The technology exists. It is affordable. People can be trained easily enough. Replay is already accepted. The NBA has it. NCAA has it, too. But apparently, not for this game.

It was Washington University in St. Louis. Not sure what division they're in.

Lawsuits? It's just a game. I know the higher up you go, the more stake there is for the coaches and players, but the majority of us do high school ball. It's just a game.

It's Washington University in St. Louis. They are Division 3.

Not even all D1 schools have replay for every game. At the D3 level, it's *generally* used only duirng the championship series.

I tried giving a benefit of the doubt, so I thought "maybe it clipped the front of the rim" and watched it again and then again in slow motion. It wasn't even close.

I had such a shot clock violation in a women's game on Saturday, but it was in the middle of the half. I did hesitate a second (as the trail) because I thought the C was in better position to get this, but when he had no whistle, I called the violation. Actually, my play was slightly different in that the shot clock expired just as the offense got the rebound, but the result should've been the same.

It's game awareness. I know that I would've pulled the crew together and reminded them of the shot clock situation. Having it just a couple of seconds apart like that screams out extra awareness on this play.

Juggling: Lawsuits? Really? Are you serious?

And you're not understanding the objection.

Not even every D1 game has a monitor.

Also, I don't think they based the shot clock non-violation on the jump shot hitting the rim, I think they judged the rebounder to have released her shot in time. She didn't, but that weak shot clock horn sure doesn't help.

If you look at the video counter the throw-in was caught at 0:09 and the rebounder released her shot just as the counter changed from 0:19 to 0:20.

Division 1 is about the only level you can guarantee to have any replay. And if you did it would be inadequate most of the time anyway.

And the idea of a lawsuit is stupid. For one courts throw out these kinds of lawsuits in this country all the time when they do happen. Courts have better things to do than ask for a system that would be too much money to function at the Division 3 level. Schools at that level do not even have a lot of people at those games, you really think they can afford equipment and people to run them for every game. Three Junior Colleges just dropped football to save money and not much makes these schools that much different than Division 3, but what the school decides to commit to financially. Replay could happen, but it would likely not be good enough to show if the ball hit the rim consistently in these situation.

Peace

I see the light on the backboard light-up, then as the W23 flips the ball a buzzer sounds. Which is the correct signal? The delay seems to be almost half a second between the backboard light and the buzzer. If the buzzer is correct, the try by W23 seems very close to being released before the buzzer.
The final buzzer is a lot louder and seems in sequence with the backboard light.

Two different buzzers or am I hearing things?

The light is for the shot clock expiring.

Which adds the hilariousness of the situation.

Maybe this video should go viral.

This is interesting in that I know 2/3 of the officials on this game. I'm actually working with one of them next Thursday.

I agree that there definitely should have been a shot clock violation, but I'd like to hear the story that they told to the coaches. I'll find out next week and report back what I hear.

Promise? Do they still a schedule?

Yes, I promise. The official I am working with has not been removed from the game (it's in a different league and a separate assignor than the game that we are viewing).

This is what I would term a "bad miss" :D

Let me throw this out there. Would you consider asking the timer and scorer what they saw on the play? If they both agree that it should have been a shot clock violation, can you then correct it, based on erroneously awarding a score?

They didn't erroneously award a score: the team scored a basket worth 2 points. They erroneously failed to call a violation, which is not a CE.

As others have mentioned, NCAA officials can only use replay if there is a court side monitor. However, it's not clear that this play would be reviewable even if a monitor were available.

Rule 2-13.5.c says: The officials shall not use such available equipment for judgment calls such as: Determine whether a violation occurred except in 2-13.3.a.2.

And 2-13.3.a.2 says: Officials shall use such available equipment in the following situations: When there is a reading of zeros on the game clock at the end of any period, after making a call on the playing court, and when necessary to determine the outcome of the game in the following situations: Determine whether a shot-clock violation occurred before the reading of zeros on the game clock.

So, if the issue was whether the ball hit the rim, the monitor may not be used. It also seems that the intent of 2-13.3.a.2 is a situation where the shot-clock violation occurs so near the end of the game so that there is a doubt as to which occurred first, which is also not the case here.

One odd thing here -- the LED lights usually don't light up when the shot-clock runs down to 0. (Do they?) Why did they light up in this situation?

It depends on the setup, of course, but they light up in most of the NCAA games I do.

So back on topic a bit....


At camp we were taught that if the T has the shot attempt, then the C has primary on the ball hitting the rim, and BI/GT. Is that still philosophy used?

Kinda. But the T under the right circumstances can follow the ball if they do not have any chance for realistic contact on a shot. But in this case the L could have seen the ball not hit the rim either. Any official can call a shot clock violation, at least on the side I do they can. ;)

Peace

Half our games have a SC and both officials call the SC violation, too.

Jeez, it only took you 4 minutes to kill all the fun! :D

Fun? :p

They could have reviewed if the shot by the girl who rebounded the airball was released prior to the shot clock expiring. (if they had a monitor)

Now that I've re-viewed the video kinda hard to even give them this out as the light for the shot clock violation clearly came on before she caught the rebound of the airball.

LED lights game clock only
 

NCAA 1-19.4 states any shot-clock LEDs should be located on the shot clock itself. Backboard LEDs are only for game clock. Can you imagine if the clock differentials were only 0.1-0.3?

One thing I'll give the crew credit for is how they handled the explanation. Brought coaches together to explain, allowed for brief question, then whistled and clearly signaled final ruling.

From his gesturing during discussion, my guess is the trail was (mistakenly) adamant the ball hit the rim. Lead (crew chief?) didn't have enough info to overrule and went with his partners call. Looking forward to jeshmit's findings.

Agree that everyone needs to have an opinion on this play, including table.

I disagree. The table has an interest in the outcome, whether we want to admit that or not. They could give you information that is totally contrary to what you see and only involving them is going to cause a problem if you do not go with them or even if you go with what they say to you. I would leave them out of this totally other than ask if the clock ran out. The crew has to know.

Peace

JRut-

You don't trust any of your table crews? I've come across many inexperienced table crews, but not many that I thought were cheaters/liars.

Since this crew was counting the score anyways, it would've done no harm to ask the home shot clock timer, "did you see the shot hit the rim?".

If the timer says "yes" or "i'm not sure", then they score the try and game over just like they did anyways.

However, if the timer says "absoultely not", then the crew can cancel score, award visitors the ball with ~1.8-2.3 on the clock and have a positive sportsmanship/integrity story to share.

I've been bailed out many times by my table crews (reporting wrong #, not seeing ball go in basket, shot clock memory) many in favor of the visitors. I'll continue to lean on those I trust when I make my next mistake.

This is not about trusting the table people. This is about who is going to have their butt in a ringer if we get this wrong. The crew on the floor cannot save us from everything and certainly not a judgment if the ball hit the rim. And in my experience in dealing with college table crews, We cannot trust them with to start the shot clock properly, let alone ask them to tell us from a fixed position if the ball hit the rim or not. And yes even if you listen to them, why put them in that situation where someone will accuse them of funny business. Did you hear the conspiracies that are being flown around about the for what happened in the AFC Championship game with the down and distance. Sorry, not going to rely on a table crew to keep that out of the outcome.

And as usually you missed the point if you think this is about trusting them for the reasons you suggest.

Peace

JRut-

Okay, if not about trust, I guess I'm not sure what your point is. I agree that ultimately, it's our butts in the ringer. Out here, assignors expect us to include table crews in our decision making process when the outcome of the game is on the line. We tell them in locker-room pre-games, "you're part of our crew. bring information if it can prevent a mistake". Whether we exhausted all options in an effort to "get it right" when we kick one is often the teaching point. Perhaps a regional, philosophical difference?

Conspiracy theories, media or fan accusations, etc. are not factors I consider when ruling on plays. Didn't see the play you mentioned. Besides, I'm a NFC fan...and am still in mourning for my Niners collapse!

Peace, as well.

Again I am happy for you that your assignor asks you to do these things, but I have never worked for anyone that put this on us to go to a table crew to know if a ball hit the rim anymore than we would go to the table crew to know if we had a travel. This is what drives me crazy about the "get it right" mantra that many have. It is not about getting it right if you are not the ones that get it right. This is the crew's responsibility or we do not need to be on the game. Why not ask a fan what they think too? The table's responsiblity does not extent do judgment calls on the court IMO and I would not put them in that position if for no other reason than to take them out of being accused of anything.

Well there was an accusation that the scoreboard operator deliberately put up the wrong down and distance near the end of the game to fool with the Ravens and as a result had the Ravens doing things based on what the scoreboard said rather than what the table said. Now how does this apply to basketball? The scoreboard in football is similar to basketball, it is for show other than the time on the clock. And the official down and distance is kept on the field. But that does not stop the media or media people making a fuss about it and it took even Coach Harbaugh (of the Ravens of course) to respond to that accusation about them being confused based on the scoreboard. And not that this situation is exactly the same, but think what the back story would be if the table told them something that was perceived in the interest of the home team and video showed differently? I just would not want to put them in that situation and would not want to be questioned as to why I screwed up and listened to someone with a possible interest in the game. If you would that is fine with me, but we as officials need to get this right, not rely on the table for things like this. I do not rely on them for other judgments in the game, why this?

Peace

The rule book states shot-clock operators duties are to reset when ball hits ring or flange. Sometimes that involves their judgement.

Let's imagine you're the L, I'm C. A1 drives to basket a bit out of control from my primary, attempts to draw foul from B1 while throwing up a prayer. Players contact in lane, both end up on floor, we deem marginal contact (no fouls), and missed shot leads to tie up in key. We close with jump ball mechanic. Possession arrow with Team A (visitors).

We look up and see the shot clock has been reset. Our trail comes in and says "hey, guys, I'm not sure that ball hit the rim, but I really don't have definitive knowledge. Did either of you see ball hit rim?" I got nothing. You say you have nothing.

Would you go to the shot-clock operator and tell them to return shot clock to the point of jump ball because our crew didn't see ball hit rim? Or do you ask the shot-clock operator "did you reset it because you're positive it hit rim?" and go with the reset if the answer is "yes".

I understand the idea of living and dying with what we see/don't see, so I'm honestly good either way. You're the crew chief, so what do we have?

Well if I am a crew chief I want my fellow officials to do their jobs. They make calls based on what they see and if I did not see something I am going with their judgment. If they missed something, they miss something. Then again I usually work with people that offer some opinion or would know either way. This is why this play is kind of shocking to me and probably others. I cannot believe that no one saw this play considering a shot hitting the rim is a normal look for officials at the college level. Even the Lead can see that even slightly. And with the horn someone I would think notice the situation. You have to before the play be aware of the disparity in the clock and the shot clock and know that a shot might be something you have to be aware of with the game on the line. I guess what I am saying is going to the table should not be an "out" to make you feel better if you miss something that is your job.

Peace

It's clear: the crew wouldn't have been able to use the monitor in this situation to deal with the shot-clock issue. A fellow official of mine e-mailed Debbie Williamson from the NCAA and she said it appeared the crew judged there was no shot-clock violation twice: once when the play happened and once again when they huddled after time expired.

I have yet to speak with the official directly, but I worked a game this past weekend where this play came up in discussion. One of my partners from Saturday said that he spoke with the trail on this play, and said that he was "beating himself up" over this play. My partner said that the trail said that he had no angle on whether or not the shot hit the rim due to the fact that he was watching the shooter come back to the floor after taking her shot.

He also said that when they got together they were discussing two things: whether the original shot hit the rim, and whether the final shot was before the final horn. Then he said that when they pulled the coaches together, they explained the situation to them (much like you can see from the video).

Here's the kicker though... the trail on the play said that the visiting coach never even asked whether or not the original shot hit the rim! That was never in question from the coaches. They were only worried about the last shot leaving the shooter's hands before the final horn.

In my opinion, the C HAS to have an idea as to whether the shot hits the rim or not. The L can have some idea, but I'm not putting that on him...

Like I said, I'm hearing this second-hand, but it came from a very reliable source... and I will be working with one of the officials on this game this coming Thursday. If I find anything else out, I will be sure to let you all know.

We had a similar play in our game on Friday, but it was near the end of the first half, and in a blowout. I was L. The first shot, taken from the outside clearly missed the rim. The offense got the rebound and put up a lay-up. I assumed (yeah, I know) that it hit the rim, but it didn't. Horn went off. C knew that it was a shot clock violation, I knew the time that should be left, and we finished the 3.6 (iirc) seconds of the half.

We've all not know for sure whether a shot hit the rim when it's taken with, say, 15 seconds left. But, the outside officials need to get it when the shot is taken with the clock about to expire.

Regardless of what was discussed when the coaches were summoned, the visiting coach certainly was questioning the lack of the shot clock violation during the officials' pow-wow.

Bottom line, its a crew error and someone (anyone -- lead, trail, center), has to get that, and anyone who gets that is a GAME-SAVER. . .

That's really, really bad

Well, I spoke with the trail on the play this past week and here what he had to say:

In summary, he still believes that while he was on the court, the ball definitely hit the rim and came straight down to the offensive player. He said that they angle he had when the shot was taken, he couldn't have come out with anything on this play as to him it looked like the ball did hit the rim. He then said that after that happened, they let the game continue and finish with the basket being counted to end the game. After the final horn sounded, he (along with the other two officials) noticed that there was great confusion going on between the benches and players, so they had to get together to have a little conversation.

The L on the play (who was also the R), lead the discussion and asked about two things: did the first shot hit the rim, and did the last shot leave the shooter's hand prior to the final horn sounding. While on the court, all three believed that the first shot did hit the rim, so they thought they solved that problem easily. Then they discussed the final shot. Most of the discussion in the pow wow was about the final shot. When they made their decision about the final shot, they got the coaches together, discussed what they were going to rule, and counted the basket. Game over.

After they got into the locker room, the C on the play started to rethink how things had played out on the floor. She said that she, "thinks [she] let them down." This is in regards to the original shot not hitting the rim. The T on the play confirmed to her that they made the right call, and that there was nothing to worry about. However, a fellow official (who had seen the video) called the T on the play on his way home and told him that they missed the call. S*** happens.

Then, he pulled out 8 8X12 still pictures of the video, and he showed me that the ball did in fact miss the rim. He said that he's carried them in his bag since he's been able to see the video. Definitely misses the rim by no less than 3" on the pictures. He definitely has spent some time thinking about this play.

He then brought something to my attention which I hadn't noticed before. If you watch the video, you will see that the C on the play never signals the final shot good or no good, and she doesn't even have a whistle to end the half/game. Basically, the T on the play said that she got, "caught up in the moment" and failed to keep her concentration at that point of the game. Needless to say, this is one play that was badly missed, and all three of them now know it. However, its time to learn from it and move on.

Bottom line, you have to have high concentration, and make high certainty calls near the end of games... especially if it is a close game.

If anyone has anymore questions about this play, let me know and I'll give you more information if I have it.

NCAA D-1: Miss the call, go to the monito, get it right, everyone is "happy" (or at least satisfied).

NCAA D-3: Miss the call, no monitor, post it on you tube, everyone excoriates the officials.

Ok-this looks like a clear cut violation on tape.I want to address Rut's comments about the table and having a vested outcome in the game.As a table crew our first obligation is to the proper administration of the game regardless of outcome and that is a guideline myself and the student scorers who work for me follow to the letter.If this is our game we'll give help if asked to the best of our abilities based on this section of the NFHS Timer's instructions:

4. If a quarter or extra period ends and:
a. The timer has been unable to make an official hear the signal,
the timer must immediately notify the official.
b. The timing signal fails or is not heard by an official, the timer
must be prepared to advise the referee as to whether the ball
was in flight when time expired, or whether a foul occurred
before or after the period had ended.
c. The timing signal is not heard by the officials, testimony of the
timer may determine whether a score shall count or a foul shall
be charged, unless the referee has information which would
alter the situation.

If that help leads to my officials getting it right and us losing a game then so be it.jeschmit-it doesn't even look like the crew talked about this play with their table crew and asked for their help.Is that assumption correct from what you have heard?

It wasn't C's call to make, she's table side.

Table side has nothing to do with it... C has last second shot in NCAAW.

Inexcusable if you ask me.

With a stoppage at that juncture the crew should have been communicating how much time was left on the shot and game clocks.

I'm not well versed in NCAA mechanics. In FIBA, the outside officials have responsibility for the flight of the ball and related issues. That being said, with such an egregious error the lead should have stepped up.

Rarely do the officials cost a team the game but in this case they did.

Mechanics, whatever.

One of the six eyes responsible for monitoring the play should have detected the shot clock violation - stepped up and done the right thing. Period.

Yuck.

What do you mean "stepped up and do the right thing"? :confused:

All 3 officials missed it. Yes, that's inexcusable but how exactly should one them have done the right thing after the fact?

-1 WRONG!!
While they missed the call, they did NOT cost a team the game. Now, I might have agreed with you if you said they cost a team a chance to win the game, but if they had gotten this call right, it would have (most likely) gone into overtime. Once in OT, anything could happen.

I think you're looking for trouble where it doesn't exist.

I meant that one of those three should have caught the violation and waved off the false buzzer-beater.

Picking nits, there. He surely meant costing the other team a chance to win on OT. Let's not think too much.

Must just be me b/c I'm thinking if someone caught the violation of course they would have waved off the buzzer beater. Saying someone needs to "step up and do the right thing" can easily be inferred as someone was lacking either 'nads or integrity.

Why would you think that? People say the exact same thing all the time when they are blaming the game on the officials.

Almost looked like she pulled a Welmer on the way to the table, but I will have to re-watch it to be sure.

I also would not have a username that is so traceable while making comments about who is working with who on a public forum.

Just re-watched it. The coach is patting his head more than Curly did in a whole series of shorts. The explanation that the coach did not have a concern with the shot clock appears to be bogus.
However, since it is not a CE, his point was moot.