So, we got totally screwed on the shot clock call

6,614 Views | 42 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by dal9
bluehenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dal9;842781572 said:

honestly, the way i read this the refs may have been right. at best, it's a badly phrased rule


Any activity after the mistake or malfunction has been committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled,

The clock malfunctioned with 9 sec remaining. Anything after should have been canceled. Cal ball with 9 sec on shot clock! RIDICULOUS!
bluehenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At the very least Cal should protest and have the officials reprimanded.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bluehenbear;842781716 said:

Any activity after the mistake or malfunction has been committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled,

The clock malfunctioned with 9 sec remaining. Anything after should have been canceled. Cal ball with 9 sec on shot clock! RIDICULOUS!


I read it in two ways, and that is one of them.

The other would be that "The malfunction or mistake may only be corrected in the shot clock period in which it occurred" says the foul stands because the shot clock period is already over when the offense shoots or is fouled.

In no way whatsoever in any kind of interpretation would it have a meaning of what happened. Where does it instruct them to time the play to see if it lasted longer than what the shot clock would have done? The refs made that freaking thing up.

It's easier to see this in football with the playclock, but there I think the NFL would either: stop and make teams play over from the exact time of the malfunction. Or if the snap is off, and no one catches the error, the result counts. In no case would they give the team the other ball because the offense exceeded the non working play clock.

Goddamn refs.

Also, is the timer/scorekeeper provided by the home team or the conference? I thought that guy was wearing a P12 shirt. (Doesn't matter for this, but curious)
bearmanpg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This was a screw job...no ands if or buts about it...the same ref that "accidentally" (he didn't need to get to the baseline that fast and if he did, he should have gone out of bounds to get there) blocked a pass to an open shooter in the corner, didn't make a call against UVA all night...he even went to the table on other occasions trying to screw Cal...it took him 5 mins to finally get a sympathetic ear from his partners and got this bull**** call....this game should be protested so the refs unethical decisions will have to be dealt with...I noticed about half way through the first half that he wasn't blowing any whistles against UVA and pointed it out to my buddy....this is the first post I've ever made about bad officiating but this was the worst call I've seen in 50 years of basketball...it definitely helped determine the outcome of this game and came at a time in a game where a good referee doesn't want to make that type of call...
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Too bad that pass didn't hit him in the face
SchweddyBallin'
How long do you want to ignore this user?
at least it seems like that pass rang his bell, he seemed a little wobbly in the immediate aftermath...
dal9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ecb;842781708 said:

It's true that the shot clock period thing is ambiguous but not in this case, because it just limits when you can review the shot clock. Either you can or can't review it. If you can't review it it's a foul. If you can, you cancel the play.

I agree it's poorly worded. I don't think it's ambiguous though.


fair enough. thing's like a damn LSAT question.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
also, did anyone notice what happened on the play directly after they wiped out the foul on Virginia and gave them the ball?

Virginia went down court and the refs gave a quick whistle on a Cal player. Not sure if it was a foul or not, but it wasn't much of a foul

I thought the refs could have at least had a make up no-call, but instead they called another tacky tak call on Cal
dal9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams;842781883 said:

also, did anyone notice what happened on the play directly after they wiped out the foul on Virginia and gave them the ball?

Virginia went down court and the refs gave a quick whistle on a Cal player. Not sure if it was a foul or not, but it wasn't much of a foul

I thought the refs could have at least had a make up no-call, but instead they called another tacky tak call on Cal


seriously, yes. I've noticed that (in some other games too) refs are so afraid to make a make-up call, that they call another dick call instead.


speaking of dumb ass things: did anyone catch Farnham's (sp?) statement that "lots of coaches let players stay in with three fouls in the first half" ... How do you get to be a professional announcer and say something like that?
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.