Rules Question on strange D1 Ending (Video)

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

"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?'"
....

I don't see that as a negative statement. That how he processes plays. Greenwood is very much an "official's" supervisor. He backed his officials in the big Cincy/Xavier fight when, IMO, there were a few mistakes made by the officials leading up to, and during, the incident. He also backed his officials in the A10 championship game a few years ago that ended in multiple technical fouls.

I think you are reading way too much into the isolated quotes in the article. Again, we don't know the context of the statements as they relate to the flow and sequence of questions from the interviewer.