Endgame controversy in No VA

Originally Posted by RookieDude

A tap could score...

or are you saying because the official said a tap couldn't score... so why bother?

Yeah a tap can score. If the offensive team knew that they probably would have attempted one, which made the defensive coach say only guard the lob and (probably) around the basket.

My bigger point is the disconnect between what the coach 'confirmed' and what the crew allowed.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My bigger point is the disconnect between what the coach 'confirmed' and what the crew allowed.

I believe some of this game could have been re-played, around these parts.

If "it" was because of a missaplication of a RULE...our State powers may have re-played this game from the point the rule was ignored.

If "it" was because of an officials JUDGEMENT...our State powers would not have re-played this game from any point.

This, of course, if the proper protests were documented.

[golfdesigner]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a direct quote from the article.

The current NF rule came around the time when a Trent Tucker from the NBA (The Knicks) shot a game winner with less than .3 seconds on the clock against the Bulls. Soon after the NBA looked into the likelyihood of this and change the rule to .3. I will have to do a little more research on the details, but this did not have anything to do with the shot clock. The NF soon followed like either before I became an official or right after in the mid-90s.

The NBA rule is actually called the Trent Tucker Rule. Here is the link to some of the information. Trent Tucker Rule

Peace

I also remember a similar situation a number of years ago (2002), Wisconsin at Michigan State I think, a shot with under 0.2 on the clock by Michigan State was disallowed and Wisconsin won by 1. The Badger win ended a long home win streak by Michigan State.

Link to article:
Lawrence Journal-World - Google News Archive Search
So maybe the NBA rule and the NCAA/NFHS rule may have similar parentage.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Something is missing here. If the R did confirm with the coach that no try or tap can score, why did he allow the basket?

Additionally, why is the coach telling his players to guard "only the players the could receive a lob pass"? If I were a coach (and trusted my referees) I wouldn't even have my players on that half of the court. No try or tap can score, so why bother?

Read again

The quote from the article:

..."Lake Braddock coach Brian Metress had just called timeout to confirm with the referee that the only shot Annandale could get off in time WAS a tip. According to Metress, the referee confirmed it"...

[grunewar]

My Association. Long discussion at the Meeting the other night. In this day and age of videos and social media, there is no hiding. We blew it. We are moving on as best we can and going forward.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Something is missing here. If the R did confirm with the coach that no try or tap can score, why did he allow the basket?

Additionally, why is the coach telling his players to guard "only the players the could receive a lob pass"? If I were a coach (and trusted my referees) I wouldn't even have my players on that half of the court. No try or tap can score, so why bother?

It was a 2 point game, the defensive team put 3 tall players in the paint to prevent any type of lob. The in-bounder thus chose to throw it to his teammate behind the 3-point line.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

Or how about at the varsity level this should be known, and doesn't really need repeating. Instead court coverage should be the conversation.

What a nonsense statement. Why is court coverage any more worth repeating? Shouldn't that be known also? Isn't that covered in your pre-game?

This situation is exactly why the rule is worth repeating, so that no one has a brain cramp.

[JugglingReferee]

The times are changing, and they have been.

With YT, cell phone video, social media, etc, there has never been a greater responsibility to get it right. That's why training, etc. is so important.

Having said that, we are still human and make mistakes. None of us is Scott Foster or Monty McCutchen.

I would definitely support a Fed rule, or a state rule, that certain specific instances of end-of-game plays are reviewable by a committee after the fact. This would be one of them. Reverse the on-court decision of allowing the basket and change the outcome of the game.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What a nonsense statement. Why is court coverage any more worth repeating? Shouldn't that be known also? Isn't that covered in your pre-game?

This situation is exactly why the rule is worth repeating, so that no one has a brain cramp.

Court coverage is the *last* thing we would cover in such a situation. If we don't know how to cover a court by now...

The catch-and-shoot rule is the ONE THING we *would* cover here.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

Court coverage is the *last* thing we would cover in such a situation. If we don't know how to cover a court by now...

The catch-and-shoot rule is the ONE THING we *would* cover here.

I disagree, reiteration of help on threes to make sure it is a three, release of the ball versus horn, and most importantly if the shot is not going to be counted start waving it off immediately, not after the horn, and after its gone in. But since these guys didn't know that, ya in this case lets cover the .3 seconds rule.

It's like covering the 10 second back court count at a dead ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

I disagree, reiteration of help on threes to make sure it is a three, release of the ball versus horn, and most importantly if the shot is not going to be counted start waving it off immediately, not after the horn, and after its gone in. But since these guys didn't know that, ya in this case lets cover the .3 seconds rule.

It's like covering the 10 second back court count at a dead ball.

Why does this need to be covered? Opposite table has the clock and since it has to be a tip, what else needs to be covered? If the ball is caught, the opposite-table official needs to come in strong and kill it.

The rest of the stuff you mentioned doesn't even apply in this situation.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why does this need to be covered? Opposite table has the clock and since it has to be a tip, what else needs to be covered? If the ball is caught, the opposite-table official needs to come in strong and kill it.

The rest of the stuff you mentioned doesn't even apply in this situation.

I agree, it does not apply, but to this crew it did.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

... and most importantly if the shot is not going to be counted start waving it off immediately, not after the horn, and after its gone in...

So don't discuss the pertinent rule, but discuss a mechanic a varsity crew should already know.

Yeah, great logical progression.

[jTheUmp]

Why not discuss both rules and coverages during the last timeout? It wouldn't take more than a few seconds anyway:

"Ok, remember now, less than 0.3 on the clock, only a tap can score. OPPOSITE_TABLE_OFFICIAL_NAME has clock, keep focus on your primary, and as soon as this is over, let's GTFO through that door".

Can't take more than 10 seconds to get through all of that.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I believe some of this game could have been re-played, around these parts.

If "it" was because of a missaplication of a RULE...our State powers may have re-played this game from the point the rule was ignored.

I sure hope not. Unfortunately with the number of games being played, I a sure there are rules being kicked somewhere every night.

1. who has the time/is going to review all these games

2. are they going to replay every game in which a rule was kicked

3. are they going to replay them even if the rule was kicked in the first minute of the game

4. when and how would they find time to replay all those games

the idea of replaying the end of this game or any other game would lead to a complete cluster ****