Illinois State/Wichita video request

[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.

[rockyroad]

Have fun storming the castle!