From one of our local pundits

[justacoach]

NCAA tournament: Refs should adjust in games’ final minutes

I wouldn't want you all to get the wrong impression but I only read this digital rag to get sports scores and horse racing results.


And to think she has the chutzpah to opine about real sports, not just the wimmens!


http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/ncaa-tournament-refs-should-adjust-in-games-final-minutes/2012/03/21/gIQAYes9RS_story.html

[Raymond]

See if this works: NCAA tournament: Refs should adjust in games’ final minutes - The Washington Post

[Adam]

What they're really saying is basketball games should have different rules when the results matter.

Stupid journalists.

[bainsey]

Stupid? I don't think so. Heavily flawed? Absolutely. And, the foundation lies in this myopic myth from the article...

A point arrives when the penalty for an infraction has a greater impact on the final score than the infraction itself.

Here's are two realities of basketball I've come to learn:
*A game is never decided by one play. It is always decided by the totality of the 32/40/48 minutes (plus overtime, if applicable). If one play decided a game, you wouldn't need the other minutes.

*Every single time there's a one-point game, without exception, it's inevitable that the officials have done something -- via action or inaction -- to affect the outcome. Way too much goes on within the game's time span not to be the case.

So, why do we buy into this myth? It really comes down to human memory capacity. We can only remember so much, and we just can't take in all 60-100 possessions. Therefore, when a controversial call happens in a game's closing minutes, it's still typically fresh in people's minds. However, if a call is kicked in the first half, people get mad for 5-10 seconds, but just move onto the next play.

In truth, the smaller the score's margin, the greater chance an official's rulings -- be they in the beginning, middle, or end of a game -- will affect that game's outcome. While those look at Notre Dame/Xavier, I guarantee you that there were rulings in other close games that affected that game just as much.

[APG]

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

I agree, with the exception of a violation by the shooter.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

I don't agree with that concept. The rule should stay as written if the offense violates first. It wouldn't matter if the defense violates thats what the delayed signal is for.

[Zeebra]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

This is exactly how it is played under the FIBA rule set. The only person who can violate on a MADE FT is the shooter. All other violations are ignored if the FT is good.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

There's only one thing I agreed with in the article...

I wouldn't mind seeing a lane violation being ignored, for both teams, if the free throw is made. Realistically, there was no impact on the violation in the Xavier game. Now the call was correct, and since the violation was so clear and obvious, it had to be called...but I'd like a rule change to ignore if the free throw is made.

.... the FIBA rule!

[Andy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Stupid? I don't think so. Heavily flawed? Absolutely. And, the foundation lies in this myopic myth from the article...



Here's are two realities of basketball I've come to learn:
*A game is never decided by one play. It is always decided by the totality of the 32/40/48 minutes (plus overtime, if applicable). If one play decided a game, you wouldn't need the other minutes.

*Every single time there's a one-point game, without exception, it's inevitable that the officials have done something -- via action or inaction -- to affect the outcome. Way too much goes on within the game's time span not to be the case.

So, why do we buy into this myth? It really comes down to human memory capacity. We can only remember so much, and we just can't take in all 60-100 possessions. Therefore, when a controversial call happens in a game's closing minutes, it's still typically fresh in people's minds. However, if a call is kicked in the first half, people get mad for 5-10 seconds, but just move onto the next play.

In truth, the smaller the score's margin, the greater chance an official's rulings -- be they in the beginning, middle, or end of a game -- will affect that game's outcome. While those look at Notre Dame/Xavier, I guarantee you that there were rulings in other close games that affected that game just as much.

I could also argue that a missed three-point shot with 7 minutes left in the first half doesn't have as much affect on the fnal score than a missed three-point shot with 1 second left in the game with a team down by two points.....

Why is it always about the referees and what they do or don't do over this course of the game and not the players?!?!?

What fans fail to realize is that we as officials are not making stuff up, we are responding to the players actions to offciate the game.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Andy

Why is it always about the referees and what they do or don't do over this course of the game and not the players?!?!?

It's simply easier to blame us, than count the number of missed layups, FTs & the turnovers.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by justacoach

NCAA tournament: Refs should adjust in games’ final minutes

I wouldn't want you all to get the wrong impression but I only read this digital rag to get sports scores and horse racing results.


And to think she has the chutzpah to opine about real sports, not just the wimmens!


http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/ncaa-tournament-refs-should-adjust-in-games-final-minutes/2012/03/21/gIQAYes9RS_story.html

Come on Coach, we really know you read it only for the horse racing results, .

MTD, Sr.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by justacoach

And to think she has the chutzpah to opine about real sports, not just the wimmens!

Is that comment really necessary?

[justacoach]

And to think she has the chutzpah to opine about real sports, not just the wimmens!

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Is that comment really necessary?

Just channelling my inner Jurassic...
Don't you miss him?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by justacoach

And to think she has the chutzpah to opine about real sports, not just the wimmens!

OY! Someone used "chutzpah" in a post! I might just plotz!