SonomaBear;842781433 said:
Those who know me on this board know that I typically don't bash the officiating and feel its a losers folly.
But, tonight was pretty clear that a call changed the outcome of the game.
It would have been nice to see the players decide this without the refs swinging the game.
SonomaBear;842781433 said:
Those who know me on this board know that I typically don't bash the officiating and feel its a losers folly.
But, tonight was pretty clear that a call changed the outcome of the game.
It would have been nice to see the players decide this without the refs swinging the game.
Trilogy44;842781475 said:
You'd think the remedy for something like this would be return the clock to where it malfunctioned, and ball out of bounds to Cal. Curious what the rule book actually says...? Does it differentiate the home versus visiting team (assuming the home team/conference controls the clock)?
I can't believe it says pretend the clock was working, and assume that no Cal player sees it getting close to 0 and gets a shot off before it expires?
Weirdly enough, there was another instance (in the 1st half I think) where the clock stopped working and they literally found a stopwatch (according to the announcers--maybe they made that up) to determine how much time should have expired....
SonomaBear;842781433 said:
Those who know me on this board know that I typically don't bash the officiating and feel its a losers folly.
But, tonight was pretty clear that a call changed the outcome of the game.
It would have been nice to see the players decide this without the refs swinging the game.
CalEnviroLaw;842781471 said:
I am not sure if it decided the game or not, but that had to have been one of the worst refereeing decisions ever. And it took them five minutes to make it.
It should have been Cal ball, sideline out of bounds with 8 or 9 seconds left on the shot clock.
CalEnviroLaw;842781471 said:
I am not sure if it decided the game or not, but that had to have been one of the worst refereeing decisions ever. And it took them five minutes to make it.
It should have been Cal ball, sideline out of bounds with 8 or 9 seconds left on the shot clock.
philbert;842781529 said:
On another play at the end of the game, did KO actually foul the guy on his layup to break the tie? It didn't look like it at the game, but I didn't see them show the replay on the scoreboard.
Cal8488;842781502 said:
True, but this is our clock, and our home clock operator AND this happened before in the game. We screwed ourselves ultimately
ecb;842781536 said:
Nope.
Also the wrong call. Page 101 of the rulebook:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR17.pdf
Determine whether the shot clock malfunctioned or a timing mistake occurred in failing to properly start, stop, set or reset the shot clock. The malfunction or mistake may only be corrected in the shot clock period in which it occurred Any activity after the mistake or malfunction has been committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled, excluding a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul or any technical foul.
ecb;842781536 said:
Nope.
Also the wrong call. Page 101 of the rulebook:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR17.pdf
Determine whether the shot clock malfunctioned or a timing mistake occurred in failing to properly start, stop, set or reset the shot clock. The malfunction or mistake may only be corrected in the shot clock period in which it occurred Any activity after the mistake or malfunction has been committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled, excluding a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul or any technical foul.
dal9;842781572 said:
honestly, the way i read this the refs may have been right. at best, it's a badly phrased rule
HoopDreams;842781574 said:
agree it's ambiguous
however, I've never seen anything like it and refs should have ruled in cal's favor in the judgement call
it was clearly not cal's fault. jabari would had made his move earlier if the shot clock the he can see was showing the 'official' time
It was the rule not the call. I sat behind the TV broadcast table. Ref explained that by rule they had no choice while agreeing it was unfair. That's why Martin didn't complain.dal9;842781575 said:
agree--it's either a bad rule or bad call
ecb;842781535 said:
wrong call. Page 101 of the rulebook:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR17.pdf
Determine whether the shot clock malfunctioned or a timing mistake occurred in failing to properly start, stop, set or reset the shot clock. The malfunction or mistake may only be corrected in the shot clock period in which it occurred Any activity after the mistake or malfunction has been committed and until it has been rectified shall be canceled, excluding a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul or any technical foul.
joshbalt;842781610 said:
Seems like the proper interpretation of that rule is that the play after the malfunction is canceled so it should have been Cal ball to inbound at the point in time where the shot clock stopped moving. Not Virginia ball out of bounds assuming a shot clock violation.
dal9;842781572 said:
honestly, the way i read this the refs may have been right. at best, it's a badly phrased rule
boredom;842781644 said:
Earlier in the game when there was a clock problem did the refs reset to when the clock issue happened or adjust for how long it took them to spot it and blow the whistle? I thought they went to when the issue happened. If so, it's inconsistent application.
I do believe that the rule here may be at fault more than the refs. I think I've seen games where there was an end of game situation (a few seconds left with a team inbounding) and the clock didn't start on time and the refs would go and look at whether the shot got off in the time that was supposed to be allotted had the clock worked properly. It's entirely feasible, especially after reading the vague rule posted here, that the refs did what they're supposed to do.
The rule needs to clearly state that you basically go back to the clock malfunction and the team that had the ball at that point inbounds the ball. It's the only fair way to do it. We have a shot clock and a game clock clearly visible to players for a reason and the players use those. Imagine if the play clock in football didn't start on time and someone scored a TD and the refs looked after and decided that the play was actually a delay of game penalty and not a TD. It's absurd.
CalHoopFan;842781615 said:
If this interpreted as Bird being fouled occurred after the shot clock violation then why wouldn't the ruling be that Cal gets the ball out of bounds with that amount of time remaining on the shot clock. I see nothing in the above rule that leads to the conclusion the refs took last night
ecb;842781634 said:
How do you read it that way? Just curious because I don't see it
dal9;842781683 said:
one thing that's ambiguous is what is a "shot clock period" [U]when the clock malfunctions[/U]? 30 seconds, or the clock hitting zero? (Therefore, what is [U]within[/U] a "shot clock period".)
also see Rule 5.12 and the ambiguous reference to Rule 11-1 there. Rule book is bad on this point. Like someone else said, it should state clearly who gets ball oob and when, rather than this "canceling" business.
