Wisconsin vs. Duke - National Championship - Master Thread

[sosinsurr]

NCAA Head of Officials John Adams on how title game refs missed the controversial out-of-bounds call:

https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmcolle...medium=twitter

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sosinsurr

NCAA Head of Officials John Adams on how title game refs missed the controversial out-of-bounds call:

https://soundcloud.com/siriusxmcolle...medium=twitter

Great post! Thanks.
Honest answers by John Adams.
He confirms that the game officials did not see the definitive replay which we got watching on TV. That's a failure of the system and DVsports should lose the contract over that.
Huge item revealed by Adams that he saw the definitive replay in time to go to the table and summon the officials back to view that before restarting play, but elected not to get involved. I can see merit in both positions--for the coordinator to get involved or not. Personally, I would have held up play and had the guys come look at every replay available, especially if I knew that there was an important one which they hadn't seen. I would have done so because of the intense scrutiny that these officials receive in the media and from the spectating public. I would feel that it is my duty to protect my guys by giving them every possible opportunity to get a very important play right and avoid some of the criticism. I don't agree with sitting back and doing nothing while knowing that your guys are going to get ripped for something when you can prevent it and eliminate the coming public outcry. When weighing whether to intervene or not, I think that the leader of NCAA officiating should take the side of getting the correct decision for the integrity of the game. He wouldn't be actually making the call, just providing the opportunity for the crew to see/have more/necessary information.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's a failure of the system and DVsports should lose the contract over that.
Huge item revealed by Adams that he saw the definitive replay in time to go to the table and summon the officials back to view that before restarting play, but elected not to get involved. I can see merit in both positions--for the coordinator to get involved or not. Personally, I would have held up play and had the guys come look at every replay available, especially if I knew that there was an important one which they hadn't seen. I would have done so because of the intense scrutiny that these officials receive in the media and from the spectating public. I would feel that it is my duty to protect my guys by giving them every possible opportunity to get a very important play right and avoid some of the criticism. I don't agree with sitting back and doing nothing while knowing that your guys are going to get ripped for something when you can prevent it and eliminate the coming public outcry. When weighing whether to intervene or not, I think that the leader of NCAA officiating should take the side of getting the correct decision for the integrity of the game. He wouldn't be actually making the call, just providing the opportunity for the crew to see/have more/necessary information.

To each his own. If the officials didn't see the right replay, it's not on them at all, but rather it's on whoever set up the replay system. So, people may criticize all they want, but...... Also, I'm a little vague about where he would have/could have taken the officials to see another better replay, but wherever it was, I don't think it would be proper for Adams to personally inject himself into the contest itself in any way while it is going on. jmo

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Great post! Thanks.
Honest answers by John Adams.
He confirms that the game officials did not see the definitive replay which we got watching on TV. That's a failure of the system and DVsports should lose the contract over that.
Huge item revealed by Adams that he saw the definitive replay in time to go to the table and summon the officials back to view that before restarting play, but elected not to get involved. I can see merit in both positions--for the coordinator to get involved or not. Personally, I would have held up play and had the guys come look at every replay available, especially if I knew that there was an important one which they hadn't seen. I would have done so because of the intense scrutiny that these officials receive in the media and from the spectating public. I would feel that it is my duty to protect my guys by giving them every possible opportunity to get a very important play right and avoid some of the criticism. I don't agree with sitting back and doing nothing while knowing that your guys are going to get ripped for something when you can prevent it and eliminate the coming public outcry. When weighing whether to intervene or not, I think that the leader of NCAA officiating should take the side of getting the correct decision for the integrity of the game. He wouldn't be actually making the call, just providing the opportunity for the crew to see/have more/necessary information.

He was left with a bad choice of getting it right the wrong way or getting it wrong the right way. There is no good choice choice there but I think he would have opened a can of worms on the order of that one US/USSR Olympic game had he intervened with no rules authority to do so .

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

He was left with a bad choice of getting it right the wrong way or getting it wrong the right way. There is no good choice choice there but I think he would have opened a can of worms on the order of that one US/USSR Olympic game had he intervened with no rules authority to do so .

I agree with this sentiment. Once someone does it that first time, all major TV sports will then have that expectation, and it will trickle down. There is an alternate sitting at the table, he should be the one reviewing all the broadcast angles the announcers are viewing while the on-court crew is reviewing at their monitor.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Same in that both plays were late in close games and incorrectly called blocks. Given John Adams apparent love for blocking fouls to encourage scoring and driving into the lane, and the limited knowledge the general public has in regards to LGP I think DeRosa correctly figured in both cases that calling a block would be more palatable.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

He was left with a bad choice of getting it right the wrong way or getting it wrong the right way. There is no good choice choice there but I think he would have opened a can of worms on the order of that one US/USSR Olympic game had he intervened with no rules authority to do so .

You are both correct.

MTD, Sr.