Rules Question on strange D1 Ending (Video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

Colgate recap: "The Bison then took a timeout to draw up a play with 21 seconds remaining. Unfortunately for the host team, during their next possession a Bison player ran out of bounds under the hoop and then was the first player to touch the ball thus committing a turnover."

Bucknell recap: "After a timeout, the Bison turned it over on a rarely seen call. Kaspar delivered a bounce pass to Frazier out near the top of the key, but the official underneath the basket blew the play dead and ruled that Frazier had stepped out of bounds on his cut along the baseline. That gave Colgate the ball back with 12.5 seconds left, and Tillotson swished a jumper from the right elbow to put the Raiders ahead with 1.1 seconds left. Bucknell’s long inbounds pass was broken up as time expired."

The sad thing is that none of these officials have more than 10 D1 games in this season based on a quick StatSheet search -- all in smaller conferences -- and it wouldn't shock me in the least bit if our anonymous poster isn't correct

I work in conferences with 2 of those officials, I'm sure they'll be fine.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I work in conferences with 2 of those officials, I'm sure they'll be fine.

I watched some of the game -- they looked rock solid.

[mutantducky]

I can't say what went on before that call. And I can't say how blatant it was. I think it is a very valid point though to make that players have done very similar moves and not been called for a violation. This one was. I'm not saying it was an incorrect call. It might be 100% right on and a great call. I just would be understanding of the coach and players' point of view on the wrong end of this call especially if they had been doing it either earlier in the game or in previous ones without it being called.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

I can't say what went on before that call. And I can't say how blatant it was. I think it is a very valid point though to make that players have done very similar moves and not been called for a violation. This one was. I'm not saying it was an incorrect call. It might be 100% right on and a great call. I just would be understanding of the coach and players' point of view on the wrong end of this call especially if they had been doing it either earlier in the game or in previous ones without it being called.

Doing what before in the game?

[Rich]

Is anyone here surprised that the supervisor, essentially, threw the official under the bus? He played the "veteran official" card even though he wasn't even on the court.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index...bucknell-.html

I wonder what John Adams would feel about this.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

Is anyone here surprised that the supervisor, essentially, threw the official under the bus? He played the "veteran official" card even though he wasn't even on the court.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index...bucknell-.html

I wonder what John Adams would feel about this.

I don't trust the context of the interviewer's question. Who knows at what part of the conversation that question was asked.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't trust the context of the interviewer's question. Who knows at what part of the conversation that question was asked.

"We have 890-some referees and they see that. At whatever level of ability they are, they have to process that and say, 'OK, if I see that, what am I going to do with it?'"

Greenwood's quotes don't make him look very good here, regardless of context. And the denigration of "Saturday night specials" in the article is the equivalent of me pointing out that these games are D1 in name only.

Also, note that the same violation was called earlier in the game. There's the warning that Greenwood waxes poetic about.