Rate The Crews........
 

Just wondering if anyone wants to give their opinions as to the best ( or worst crew) that they saw the last two days and was there anyone that they were surprised to see the last two days.......

I really think the crew that worked the Michigan-Kansas game was outstanding. Everything they had I could understand or agree with. They got the obvious and called what needed to be called. But I will admit that was the only game I watched from pretty much beginning to end. Every other game I watched bits and pieces of the game.

Peace

Although I didn't like the final score, I did appreciate the officiating in the Louisville-Oregon game. It seemed to me that they let the little stuff go and were very consistent from start to finish on their calls. I don't know how a crew could be better than that. They let the players decide the outcome of the game and that's the way it's supposed to be.

Overall. Absolutely terrible. I cant believe that travel violations are not being called. Too many times, the defense is called for a foul after the offensive player travels. Its hard to watch and when a player's arms accidently connects with a player above the shoulder they have to stop the game and go to the monitor. That sucks.

Just so you know the rule does not distinguish if an elbow is accidental or not, it is not allowed in most situations. If the coaches do not like that rule, they will change it. They created this monster in the first place.

Peace

I need to log some more games in my Laz-e-Boy before I can even think about rating these crews...

Haven't seen much this year. Haven't really been that interested, to be honest.

That might explain the performance of my brackets.

My honest opinion
 

I've seen a ton of calls I have not agreed with so far this tourney season (men and women).

The above mentioned Baylor-Louisville game is the most controversial.

My biggest complaint about the tourney has not been with the officiating, it is with the rules.

How many times have we witnessed a team without a timeout remaining getting extra time while the officials review how much time is on the clock. This rule has the potential to significantly alter the ending of a game.

The handling of clock issues should be the same as rule 5-10 of the NFHS book. Spending 2 minutes to determine if the clock should read 2.3 or 2.4 remaining is ridiculous when it gives a team what amounts to an additional time out to set up a play they otherwise would not have a chance to set up if the element of human error was still allowed.

If the officials know an error occurred then they should be allowed to review, which has happened a couple times this tourney (like a full second off the clock for example), but when we are talking about the margin of human error) roughly .14 for reaction time we are to nit picky.

Blame the coaches and ADs who write the rules. Maybe they like that free time out.

No problem with doing that. It seems like the NCAA (the coaches, and AD's as well) speak out of both sides of their mouths. One one side they complain about the "speed of the game", then at the same time they make rules like this which amount to taking an extra few timeouts during the game.

Actually who cares what they say? It is their game and they make the rules. I think this is much to do about nothing and people that have made this suggestion have really no solution. Either you make the players stand in a certain place and you would have people complain when coaches talk to their kids at that moment or you forget a timing mistake and then you have a game lost because that extra second was not added. And trust me, the last part would be worse. Talking to your team means nothing. I guess no one ever made a big deal out of an injury that would create the same situation under the rules.

Peace

The problem is in most cases were are not talking about a second. We are talking about .1 or .2, not a full second. The rule should be that if the officials have knowledge that the clock failed to stop, or failed to start properly then they can review the play.

Basketball is a game of human error. This takes all level of human error out of the game.

As for the comment it is their game, and they can get the rules. That is only partially true. When the schools are charging what they charge for tickets to the game, and the NCAA charges what they are charging for tickets to the post-season, the game becomes everyone's game, which entitles everyone to an opinion. The simple fact is the NCAA is the most hypocritical organization on Earth.

To use another example from recent times.

The NCAA is very strict on the contact a coach can have with a potential student athlete, or a student athlete enrolled at another school who desires to transfer. At the same time you have a coach who has signed a 10 year contract extension that gets pulled away from his employer after another school contacts him without any permission from his employer. Anywhere else this is a major violation of contract law, but in the NCAA it is simply business as usual.

The NCAA does not give one rats rear end about integrity, they care about the $$$$$$ and that is it. This timing rule isn't about making sure the ruling is correct, it's about building interest in the last seconds of the game. If they have to review the play, which seems to happen every game, it helps build drama for the last few seconds.

The simple fact is the NCAA, the coaches and the television networks are all so corrupted by the $$$$ that they have forgotten what real basketball is, a game of emotion with human error involved.

One final thing. Why is it that they can't review something really important like who the ball touched out of bounds off, but can review if the clock operator failed to stop it on the exact 1/10th of a second. A missed OOB call is much more a factor late in a game than the extra .1 second ends up being.

Is this a rhetorical question? You'd getting a better answer if you called the local coach's show. As has been stated, coaches and ADs (and conference commissioners) make up the entirety of the rules committee. Most, if not all, of us here have no way to be privy to the "why" of these rules decisions.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone has an option not to buy tickets or watch the broadcasts.

BUT, not everyone is on the rules committee.

Haven't you ever heard of Congress? :confused:

You would be wrong. In the Michigan-Kansas game they added more than a second (around 1.2 or 1.3) to the end of the game where Kansas had the opportunity to win the game. Kansas was out of timeouts and that was not the first situation where that took place. I know people love to suggest things with hyperbole, but they have added more than a second in most situations just in this tournament alone.

Says who? If you pay to go to their games or watch their games, not sure what you are talking about. If you do not like it, do not watch or go to games. And the minute time is not put on the clock or a coach loses a game because of this situation, then nothing is going to change. I do think that many decisions are made because of public concern, but this is not one of them that is going to make much difference.

I do not even know what this has to do with anything. The Presidents decide what is OK or not OK. Rules like this are not based off of morals, they are based off of things to have a fair playing field. If anything that whole idea of trying to do that creates other problems. And it is not related to anything we are discussing about a playing rule.

Again, who cares? I certainly do not when it comes to this discussion right now.

OK, it is important. It is important because the minute that something happens (and it has) with relationship to the clock and someone is not given the right time or the right time does not end up on the clock near the end of the game, ESPN will loop that play and YouTube will loop that play until they get tired of talking about it. Then they will list the situation in the Top 10 worst officiating mistakes in history and tell everyone how the "wrong" team advanced and won the title. Please, stop it with the hyperbole and exaggeration. And people are already complaining about something that is safety based and now you want to add another review and people will complain when that review takes several minutes and a team has time to discuss a play without a single timeout left. Yep, let us do that. :D

Peace

We are simply going to have to agree to disagree then. Personally I find the arrogance you are showing with the I'm right and you must be wrong sickening and am done discussing this with you because nothing pisses me off more than dealing with blowhards like yourself. Have a good day.

BTW: I am actually a college official (in a different sport) and know exactly how the rules are set. This was a discussion about what was right and wrong with the rules. Giving a team the benefit of an extra time out because of a human error that is simply the reaction time of a human is taking the human element out of the game. Why do we even employee a clock operator to work the clock, there is technology available to stop the clock when it needs to be stopped and start the clock when it needs to be started. Maybe we should just use that technology instead of having a human clock operator.

I really do not give a crap if you think I am right. You came here and gave an opinion and I came here and gave an opinion. If you do not want to hear my opinion or anyone else's, then take your little ball and go home. No one asked you to post here or anywhere else. And I am right about who creates the rules, because that is the coaches. I am right if they find the situation to be a problem they will change it. If they do not find it a problem it will stay the same. And I seriously doubt much is going to change in these areas. They might address some things, but I doubt it will be drastic in nature. If it does change then so be it, but honestly if you did not want to hear other's opinions then you know where you can go. ;)

Peace

While I often disagree with Rut, I think this is exactly opposite. If there is an arrogant blowhard between the two of you, it isn't Rut.

This thread was doomed from the start, methinks.

-closed-