Illinois State/Wichita video request

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Yes, 32 should have been the shooter. Could be the officials got the wrong guy or that 32 was hurt. If the latter, doesnt really matter if you think the kid isnt hurt that badly, if they tell you he is hurt, than he is hurt. We dont get paid enough money to make medical decisions in addition to officiating the game.

Being that this is NCAAM, if the kid that had been fouled was declared injured to the point he couldn't shoot, then the opposing coach should have been allowed to pick the FT shooter from the remaining players left on the floor (unless there was blood). I doubt Ill St would have put on of WSU's best players on the line (I have no clue what kind of FT shooter Early, the player who shot is). I think WSU pulled a fast one swapping shooters and I say that as a WSU fan.

This was a pretty experienced crew also. Happens to the best of them, even with video I suppose.

Edit: I stand corrected. I forgot that on flagrant fouls that the offended coach can select his own shooter.

[johnny d]

nope rock, see 2 cents post above about ff1 foul and injured shooter

[zm1283]

They got the wrong shooter. It's fairly obvious, guys. #32 for WSU, who was the one kicked, was sprinting down the court when the whistle was blown on his teammate for the foul that sent ISU to the line. I agree that it's a flagrant foul, but if that kick injured him, he's a pansy.

Edit: http://www.goshockers.com/pdf8/14391...DB_OEM_ID=7500

There is the game recap. Tekele Cotton (#32) came in the game with over four minutes to go and was in the rest of the game from what I can tell. Cleanthony Early (#11 that shot the free throws) came in at 2:26 and was in the rest of the game. Early is one of their best players. He wasn't going to be on the bench at that point in the game.

[Thumper68]

This is on ESPN.


ST. LOUIS -- The Missouri Valley Conference has disciplined the officiating crew from Sunday night's Wichita State-Illinois State game after it awarded technical foul shots to the wrong player in the closing seconds of the game.

The league office said in a statement Monday the crew of David Hall, Gerry Pollard and Paul Janssen wrongly awarded two foul shots to the Shockers' Cleanthony Early after calling a Flagrant 1 technical foul on Illinois State star Jackie Carmichael with 40 seconds left.

The officials reviewed video during a stoppage in play that showed Carmichael kicking Wichita State's Tekele Cotton above the shoulder on a defensive rebound.

The Shockers were trailing 67-60 when the incident occurred. Early made both technical free throws and his 3-pointer with 5.2 seconds left gave them a 68-67 victory.

The conference did not say how the officials were disciplined.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Thumper68

This is on ESPN.


ST. LOUIS -- The Missouri Valley Conference has disciplined the officiating crew from Sunday night's Wichita State-Illinois State game after it awarded technical foul shots to the wrong player in the closing seconds of the game.

The league office said in a statement Monday the crew of David Hall, Gerry Pollard and Paul Janssen wrongly awarded two foul shots to the Shockers' Cleanthony Early after calling a Flagrant 1 technical foul on Illinois State star Jackie Carmichael with 40 seconds left.

The officials reviewed video during a stoppage in play that showed Carmichael kicking Wichita State's Tekele Cotton above the shoulder on a defensive rebound.

The Shockers were trailing 67-60 when the incident occurred. Early made both technical free throws and his 3-pointer with 5.2 seconds left gave them a 68-67 victory.

The conference did not say how the officials were disciplined.

That article makes no sense for 2 reasons.

First, you can't have a "wrong" shooter for a technical foul.

Second, the foul was for live ball contact, so it was a personal foul, not a technical foul.

Hopefully someone will write an accurate article on the situation.

My thinking, they incorrectly assessed the live ball contact as a technical foul.

[Thumper68]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That article makes no sense for 2 reasons.

First, you can't have a "wrong" shooter for a technical foul.

Second, the foul was for live ball contact, so it was a personal foul, not a technical foul.

Hopefully someone will write an accurate article on the situation.

My thinking, they incorrectly assessed the live ball contact as a technical foul.

I agree! I would like to know the real details, but we probably won't get them.

[twocentsworth]

Per the ESPN.com article posted above, it's clear the officials correctly called a FF1 foul against Il. St., but allowed an incorrect Wichita St. shooter to attempt the two FT's. It wasn't a technical foul; it wasn't a personal foul; it was a Flagrant Foul 1 (which is the same as an Intentional Foul in NFHS).

The crew made the mistake of putting the wrong shooter at the FT line. A big-time mistake by a big-time crew!

[lshoemak]

Here is the rule:

----- Beginning of Rule -----
Section 13. Games with Replay/Television Equipment
Art. 1. Courtside replay equipment, videotape or television monitoring must be located on a designated courtside table (i.e., within approximately 3 to 12 feet of the playing court), in order to be used by game officials. An on-screen game clock display on the monitor may be used only when the display is synchronized with the official game clock..
Art 2. Officials may use such available equipment only in the following situations:
{SKIP TO SECTION ABOUT FOULS}
d. Fouls.
1. Determine if a flagrant 2 personal foul, flagrant 2 contact technical foul or (women) flagrant 1 personal foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent or a (women) contact dead ball technical foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent occurred. When it is determined that a flagrant 2 contact technical foul did not occur but a flagrant 1 personal foul, or contact dead ball technical foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.
a. When there is a foul called for contact, the officials, with a plausible reason, may review the severity of that foul during the dead ball period following the call. When the ball becomes live, there shall be no review of the made call.
b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team.
2. When officials err and fail to observe the fouls according to 2-13.2.d.1 or a fight, they are permitted to correct and penalize these infraction(s), with the use of a monitor review, when the act occurs:
a. When the game clock was stopped, it must be corrected:
1. During the first dead ball after the clock was properly started.
b. When the game clock was running, it must be corrected:
1. During the first dead ball after the clock was properly stopped; or
2. Before the second live ball when the ball became dead after a successful goal but the clock continued to run.
3. When it is determined that a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a fight did occur within the prescribed time frame, the infraction(s) should be penalized and play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the offended team where the stoppage of play occurred to review the flagrant act. (Men) When a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a contact dead ball technical foul is assessed, play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the offended team at the division line on either side of the playing court. Any previous activity before the monitor review shall not be canceled or nullified. When it is determined that a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a fight did not occur or did not occur within the prescribed time frame, play shall be resumed where the stoppage of play occurred to review the act.
----- End of Rule -----

As it was applied in this game, could someone explain to me why (1) the WSU coach was permitted to request a monitor review of a non-call & (2) why any foul was called after the review?

Per rule 2-13.2.d.1.b: "A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred." However, no such foul was called. Plus, per 2-13.2.d.1, no elbows were thrown. I see how the "spirit" of the rule could be applied in this case, but we, as officials, aren't supposed to "interpret" the rules, only apply them.

As I see it:
- The WSU coach had no right to be awarded a monitor review since no elbows were thrown.
- Since no foul was initially called, you can't assess a foul "after the fact" following monitor review that was not initially called, only the severity of a previously-called foul.
- If the non-called foul is assessed after the fact, how could the subsequent WSU foul also be assessed?
- The rules are pretty clear regarding for what & when monitor reviews are permitted. None of the prerequisites existed in this case.

I'm not a fan of either team & don't care who won. However, these officials blew more than simply allowing the wrong WSU player to shoot the free throws. They allowed themselves to be influenced by the WSU coach & crowd. It was sad to watch. They blew the initial non-call of the kick (& it was only in the chest, not in the head as others have suggested) & then mis-applied (some would say "made up") rules to bail themselves out.

The rule should be updated or changed, but as it is currently written ISU got screwed by the officials. Think about it: If WSU could legally request a monitor review on this non-call, why are there no coach requests for monitor reviews on non-calls at the end of games when a shooter is obviously fouled at the buzzer?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by lshoemak

As it was applied in this game, could someone explain to me why (1) the WSU coach was permitted to request a monitor review of a non-call?

Per rule 2-13.2.d.1.b: "A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred." However, no such foul was called. Plus, per 2-13.2.d.1, no elbows were thrown.

As I see it:
- The WSU coach had no right to be awarded a monitor review since no elbows were thrown.
- Since no foul was initially called, you can't assess a foul "after the fact" following monitor review that was not initially called, only the severity of a previously-called foul.
- If the non-called foul is assessed after the fact, how could the subsequent WSU foul also be assessed?
- The rules are pretty clear regarding for what & when monitor reviews are permitted. None of the prerequisites existed in this case.

They blew the initial non-call of the kick (& it was only in the chest, not in the head as others have suggested) & then mis-applied (some would say "made up") rules to bail themselves out.

1. There doesn't have to be a foul called for a coach to request a monitor review for the types of fouls mentioned in the rule. You posted the rule. It's pretty clear. It doesn't say that's a requirement.
2. The "there wasn't an elbow thrown" has no bearing on this play - doesn't matter either way for the review to be done or not.
3. The elbow issue parts of that rule you quoted refer specifically to NCAA-W games only.
4. They didn't misapply a rule. They applied it correctly. They made the error of allowing the wrong shooter. And are being held accountable for it.

Edit to include this: You're treading on thin ice being so overtly critical of the officials when you clearly don't understand the rules you're trying to judge them by. Learn and understand the rules before you post about them.

[lshoemak]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Edit to include this: You're treading on thin ice being so overtly critical of the officials when you clearly don't understand the rules you're trying to judge them by. Learn and understand the rules before you post about them.

Thank you for the explanation. In the future, feel free to keep your smart alec remarks to yourself.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by lshoemak

Thank you for the explanation. In the future, feel free to keep your smart alec remarks to yourself.

Respectfully, there was nothing smart alec about it. I'm simply advising you on how to post about rules and criticism of officials in the future: Either know them or ask about them before being harshly critical of officials who are actually applying them correctly.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by lshoemak

Thank you for the explanation. In the future, feel free to keep your smart alec remarks to yourself.

The language in your post is rather strong in criticizing something you don't seem to understand. Take that for what you will but putting the integrity of the officials in doubt is not something to be taken lightly.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by lshoemak

Thank you for the explanation. In the future, feel free to keep your smart alec remarks to yourself.

(1) Welcome.

(2) Try to take your own advice. Impugning the integrity of the officials with no basis other than your speculation is never going to be received well here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by lshoemak

Thank you for the explanation. In the future, feel free to keep your smart alec remarks to yourself.

"I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

"I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

Iocane powder; I'd bet my life on it.