So, we got totally screwed on the shot clock call

6,584 Views | 42 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by dal9
SonomaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


Unbelievable.
jvj24601
How long do you want to ignore this user?
College basketball refs are generally awful. Agree that their screw-up affected the game's outcome.

But the team needs to be able to deal with bad calls - bad refs are part of the landscape. Always have been, always will be.
ddc_Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why not just replay the possession from the beginning?
CalEnviroLaw
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Trilogy44
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


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....
73bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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....


I'm curious about the rule as well. It seems bizarre to allow a shot clock violation when neither the refs nor the players knew the 30 seconds expired. The ex post review and then the five minutes plus of conferencing made me think the rules might have a hole.
Cal8488
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


True, but this is our clock, and our home clock operator AND this happened before in the game. We screwed ourselves ultimately
tim94501
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wasn't explained in the arena at all. Fuckin joke that complete sucked the life out of the crowd.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


This
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
tsubamoto2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


David Hall is terrible. Dude nearly cost us a possession by getting in the way of a pass.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


There was no contact at the release of the ball, but then KO brought his hand down (dunno why or how) and hit the other guy's hand/arm maybe a quarter of a second later. It was a foul, but it didn't need to be called.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i thought the refs were one sided, but it was only from my vantage point so I can't say for sure
seemed like they were calling tacky tak calls on cal, and didn't call the same contact against virginia
one time a guard drove the basket right in front of me and got totally mugged ... no call

[COLOR="#0000CD"]Myron Medical - ESPN Staff Writer
Shot-clock malfunction leads to shot clock violation for Cal upon further review. Unfair to Cal. Not their fault the clock stopped midgame, resulting in a crucial turnover with Virginia up by one late. Virginia hits the shot, extends lead to 3. Not right.[/COLOR]





seemed like an awful lot of traveling calls against both teams... but those looked legit to me
ecb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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


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.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
+
south bender
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


Thanks for this, ecb!
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is where Conzo should have recgnized the rule and its misapplication and had a cow on the court. Even if it results in a T. This was so obvious to everybody that the second it took longer that 60s for the refs to make a decision that they were over thinking it and were about to make a mistake. If there was ever a game that might have decided a team's post season future it might have been this one for Cal.
dal9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


honestly, the way i read this the refs may have been right. at best, it's a badly phrased rule
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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


dal9;842781572 said:

honestly, the way i read this the refs may have been right. at best, it's a badly phrased rule
dal9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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


agree--it's either a bad rule or bad call
Don'tDance
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dal9;842781575 said:

agree--it's either a bad rule or bad call
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.
joe amos yaks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shot clock malfunction...mechanical, electronic or human error?

[U]Fix it![/U] Fix the problem and not the blame.

It's not fair to the players.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also the scoreboard still continues to have problems. This needs to be fixed!
joshbalt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
SaintBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


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
Bearprof
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


Agree completely. Disastrous call
ecb
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


How do you read it that way? Just curious because I don't see it
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
ecb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


Can you explain what about the rule is vague? The way I see it, the mistake was never rectified and so all play must be cancelled. No foul, no violation.
calfanz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6053[/ATTACH]
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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


Exactly. The rule seems to say that we should have gotten the ball at around 9 seconds when the clock malfunctioned. No foul shot. I don't see where it is ambiguous.
dal9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ecb;842781634 said:

How do you read it that way? Just curious because I don't see it


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.
ecb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


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.
Page 1 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.