RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

0.2
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
harlem_basketball



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 2666
Location: Gee I don't know...Harlem maybe?


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 11:22 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
pilight wrote:
Here's what some actual refs think:

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=41828


That PTS argument is bullshit. If it was a case of PTS, the clock never would have restarted after the whistle. Either the clock operator anticipated instead of reacting or the clock malfunctioned. But it wasn't PTS. IAABO's failed another one. Rolling Eyes
thatGAgirl



Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 4825
Location: The Peach State


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 11:27 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
That's an interesting thread, pilight. Thanks for the link.

thatGAgirl wrote:
This is what bothers me:

Quote:
Stringer said the referees assured her the clock was working properly and that time was remaining when the foul occurred.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/recap?gameId=280422633


How can you even come to that conclusion Confused


Well, this poster gives a pretty reasonable answer to my question:

Quote:
I watched this game last night and replayed it over & over. Just watched it again on SC & replayed it over and over. The clock did stop but begs the question why?

A couple of points.....

This play is a "SHALL" court-side monitor play. The officials have to go to the monitor to determine if the foul happened before the expiration of time. When @ the monitor hes asking for camera angles of the in question play. He's telling the truck to get him the play from every angle available. Most importantly when the contact happened he would have them pause the frame and look @ the time. The time is superimposed @ the bottom of the court-side monitor screen.

Unless the officials knew there was a timing error they wouldn't be looking for that @ the monitor. When he gets the play and pulls it up he's having the truck step it forward frame by frame until he sees the foul and then pauses the frame and checks the time. If it showed .2 then he did the right thing from the information given to him.

Could he have seen that the clock did stop? Sure if that was what he was looking for. He didn't know it stopped so I'm sure his conversation to the replay personnel was all in regards to finding the frames that showed the contact while checking the time that was on the clock when the contact happened.

If he did see that the clock stopped prematurely then he can from the court-side monitor by rule, reconstruct the play and if possible use the stop watch @ the table to try, if possible, to get the time correct if he knew.

I watched the game live and didn't know the clock stopped until after SC replayed it several times. Imagine the "R" going to the monitor and looking @ the play. He probably sees most of it in fast forward until he gets to the play with the contact. Unless he knows theirs a clock malfunction then why would he be looking for anything else? His purpose @ the monitor was to see when the foul occurred and if their was time on the clock. When the contact happened their was .2 on the clock. Unbeknown to him the clock had stopped prematurely.

BTW...Some one said that the contact should've been ignored since the Tennessee player jumped back into the defender. Right!!! If you don't think this play was a foul then I don't know what would be. She pulled her down from the backside.

The officials didn't screw anybody nor are they @ fault for not knowing the clock stopped and started. None of the officials are looking @ the clock @ this point in the game. The clock had been running after the last dead ball. No reason to look @ it again until there's a whistle. Unless someone points out that the clock stopped then started then they wouldn't have any reason to believe they had a problem. They handled this by the book on the information they were given.

Keep in mind that they aren't getting the same look that we are getting @ home. They might get the same view but its not on a big color screen TV. They are reviewing the play on a small 8-10" screen while giving specific instruction on what they want to see & only looking @ that information.


Eh, I still say hogwash! Twisted Evil



_________________
"You can play as hard as you want, but if you're stupid it doesn't matter"

- Diana Taurasi
Joey Nations



Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 457



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 12:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Three other points as I watched the highlights again.

1. Even if the refs called the foul at the end, it wouldn't have mattered as Rutgers wasn't in the bonus yet.

2. Why wasn't Hornbuckle given a technical for taunting after the Anosike FT? She pointed right at the Rutgers player just like Bobbitt did.

3. The foul on Anosike happened after she landed, which would have been after the buzzer.



_________________
"People kept saying why are you looking at Maryland, why are you even talking to them? Well, look at us now!" - Crystal Langhorne, NCAA Champion

http://www.terpswomenshoops.blogspot.com
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 12:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Joey Nations wrote:
Three other points as I watched the highlights again.

1. Even if the refs called the foul at the end, it wouldn't have mattered as Rutgers wasn't in the bonus yet.

2. Why wasn't Hornbuckle given a technical for taunting after the Anosike FT? She pointed right at the Rutgers player just like Bobbitt did.

3. The foul on Anosike happened after she landed, which would have been after the buzzer.


If the foul on the last inbounds had been called (and, let me say, it's hard for me to be sure there was a foul, but let's go with that for argument's sake), it would have occurred before the clock started (which it never did, apparently), so RU would have had one more chance to inbound from the spot near the foul. That probably wouldn't have made any difference, but it would have taken it from a 1 in a million chance to maybe 1 in 1,000 (okay, maybe 10,000) for RU to score.
luvDhoops



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 8229



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 1:02 pm    ::: Re: End of game Reply Reply with quote
[quote="Orange][Krush"]I still have nightmares of last years UNC game, where the refs swallowed their whistles and let Tennessee get away with highway robbery.quote]

Okay, this part was just funny. Show this post to any Duke fan and it's instant punch line material.
CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 1:07 pm    ::: Re: End of game Reply Reply with quote
luvDhoops wrote:
Okay, this part was just funny. Show this post to any Duke fan and it's instant punch line material.


Huh?
00NDROCKS



Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 1124
Location: Indiana


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 1:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
I sat and watched over and over the same instant replay that the officals watched and how is it that I saw what they did not ....????????

It was so clear as you watched the replay with the clock in clear view that it stuck on .02 for what seemed days and finally when old what's his name blew his whistle and threw up his arm that the clock was at .00

As I stated I watched it over and over .......


F--ING SCREWED UP GAME

GO GET EM VIV Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil



_________________
" My best seasons in the WNBA have been the two that I spent in Indiana. Not only did I get the chance to play in front of some of the most passionate fans in the WNBA, but I also had an incredible opportunity to play alongside one of the best players in the history of the game in Tamika Catchings. " ANNA DEFORGE.
BBallFanCT729



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 2666
Location: UConn Territory


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 2:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
The thing is...how did the PTS system re-start the clock after it stopped? That clock ran out after being stuck at 0.2 for about a second. Who started it back up again?

The whole PTS excuse doesn't wash.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 2:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
BBallFanCT729 wrote:
The thing is...how did the PTS system re-start the clock after it stopped? That clock ran out after being stuck at 0.2 for about a second. Who started it back up again?

The whole PTS excuse doesn't wash.


The refs can restart the clock with the packs on their belts. I keep thinking that one of the refs stopped the clock accidentally and then restarted it. Someone suggested that it happened because the ref thought Parker's shot was going in, and you do stop the clock on a made basket in the last minute or so of the game.

If you think about it, 1.3 seconds is about the right amount of time for someone to push the stop button, realize the mistake and push the start button. Of course, if that's what happened, an ethical official would have explained it to the others and they would have given the ball to Tennessee for an inbounds play. (I understand that, in a situation where the possession isn't clear, like a ball bouncing off the rim, the ball is awarded based on alternate possession, and it would have been Tennessee's turn.)
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19768



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 2:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
beknighted wrote:
BBallFanCT729 wrote:
The thing is...how did the PTS system re-start the clock after it stopped? That clock ran out after being stuck at 0.2 for about a second. Who started it back up again?

The whole PTS excuse doesn't wash.


The refs can restart the clock with the packs on their belts. I keep thinking that one of the refs stopped the clock accidentally and then restarted it. Someone suggested that it happened because the ref thought Parker's shot was going in, and you do stop the clock on a made basket in the last minute or so of the game.

If you think about it, 1.3 seconds is about the right amount of time for someone to push the stop button, realize the mistake and push the start button. Of course, if that's what happened, an ethical official would have explained it to the others and they would have given the ball to Tennessee for an inbounds play. (I understand that, in a situation where the possession isn't clear, like a ball bouncing off the rim, the ball is awarded based on alternate possession, and it would have been Tennessee's turn.)


I agree, although, because of the error, as I've posted before, It's not fair to Tennessee to have to inbounds the ball with .2 seconds, when they were right next to their basket (although, the likely hood of that going in before the buzzer ran out was slim to none, but still..it wouldn't be fair) Which is why I said, they should have put about .6 back on the clock, this allows a player to catch and shoot. Odds of winning, incredibly small..but I'd say just as good as catching the ball next to the basket with .2 left..



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
njjosh



Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 1458



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 3:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
They're talking about this play today on WFAN, the sports talk station in New York City. The only time they talk about women's sports (same could be said for most of the national media) is when something embarrasing like this happens.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 4:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
njjosh wrote:
They're talking about this play today on WFAN, the sports talk station in New York City. The only time they talk about women's sports (same could be said for most of the national media) is when something embarrasing like this happens.


True enough, unfortunately.

In any event, they've been talking about it for a surprisingly long time, and reports on the RU board indicate that Mike Tranghese was on with them and said, among other things, that the clock operator is responsible for starting and stopping the clock in the last minute and that apparently the refs never talked to the clock operator or vice versa.
mandih23



Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 2159
Location: Phoenix, AZ


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 6:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=3243053
Quote:
The inventor of the timing device used in No. 1 Tennessee's 59-58 win over Rutgers (No. 4 ESPN/USA Today, No. 5 AP) suspects human error led to the disputed ending of Monday night's game.



_________________
When the whole world seems wrong then right your own self. ~ Grandma
jimmyk



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 4028
Location: Bristol. TN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 7:38 pm    ::: Re: End of game Reply Reply with quote
BobScoutingReport wrote:
I don't think it is fair to bash the officials if they didn't realize the clock stopped for a fraction of a second. There was so much going on. My question is did the refs know about the clock malfunction?


It's very fair to say that the officials messed the game up. How can they not see that the clock stopped for over a second? Sitting in my freaking living room during that final play, I was sitting there wondering why the buzzer hadn't gone off already when Anosike had the ball.

I still think someone in the crowd had a whistle. I heard one during play a few minutes earlier in the game and everyone kept playing. If the system stops when a whistle is blown, then any idiot in the crowd could blow a whistle and stop the clock. I'd have to listen to the audio near the end, though...ESPN said last night that there was a whistle in the audio when the clock stopped.

Regardless of all this baloney, it's a bad call, and it's not a good thing for women's basketball to be making news about.
thesixthwoman



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 7:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
Rutgers' Statement:
http://www.spmsportspage.com/published/pr/rutgers-statement-regardi.shtml
jimmyk



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 4028
Location: Bristol. TN


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/12/08 7:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote
mandih23 wrote:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=3243053
Quote:
The inventor of the timing device used in No. 1 Tennessee's 59-58 win over Rutgers (No. 4 ESPN/USA Today, No. 5 AP) suspects human error led to the disputed ending of Monday night's game.


That article right there is full of really good nuggets about the system and how the game ended. That throws out my theory that another whistle stopped the clock.

But, there's still that 1.3 second span between the clock stopping and the foul. Could it be that one of the refs started to blow the whistle just after the Parker shot missed? In theory, the ref could've barely blown into the whistle and suddenly decided against it, and in that hesitation gotten just enough noise to stop the clock.

The one thing that strikes my mind is...how many times have we each looked at this? I've seen it probably 15 times by now. Even with a second, third, fourth look I wouldn't have gotten the call right myself. That said, I am not a trained referee like these people are. That's the difference, and the reason I believe it's still inexcusable for the game to end the way it did.
RubberTroll



Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 344



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/08 12:37 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
jimmyk wrote:


That article right there is full of really good nuggets about the system and how the game ended. That throws out my theory that another whistle stopped the clock.

But, there's still that 1.3 second span between the clock stopping and the foul. Could it be that one of the refs started to blow the whistle just after the Parker shot missed? In theory, the ref could've barely blown into the whistle and suddenly decided against it, and in that hesitation gotten just enough noise to stop the clock.


Here is some more fodder for your theory:
http://forum.officiating.com/showpost.php?p=484786&postcount=92

claims to be a memo sent out by PTS that refs talking to players with whistle in their mouth can stop clock.
thesixthwoman



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 6296
Location: NYC


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/13/08 3:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote
the story here is that the NY TIMES is still talking about it, too, but I have to save some of you some time (ha ha) and tell you that there is not much "new" here. just posting for those who might want to know it is there...

Human Error, Not Clock, May Have Cost Rutgers
By RAY GLIER
Published: February 13, 2008

The creator of the timing system used in the controversial Tennessee-Rutgers womens game Monday night said he suspected that human error led to the clocks stopping and then suddenly restarting in the final seconds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/sports/ncaabasketball/13rutgers.html?ref=sports
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin