Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="CA Monk, post: 1969078, member: 5268"]
I'm a little late to the party with this one, but I can't help revisiting this and commenting on its lunacy:

I still don't get it. In the Gonzaga game, Cooney made a brilliant court savvy play when in crunch time of a monumental game, he sensed the ball rotation and, in his intuitive way unique to gym-rats, positioned himself to intercept a pass to the corner - brilliant. Remember? One of the 3 refs (the one standing near mid-court who had the worst view) called him out of bounds even though he was shielded from the play by many bodies and a great distance. The replay clearly showed Cooney was in bounds - a fact buttressed by the ref on the end line who had an unimpeded view and did [B]not [/B]rule him out of bounds.

A great confab was held and with great sincerity and abundant scrutiny the call had to stand because "by rule" the chief refs determination (that Cooney was out of bounds) had to stand. What? It was like the OJ verdict. Why couldn't that "rule" be supplanted, overruled, set aside (whatever you want to call it) by the common sense of seeing that Cooney was in bounds. All the refs had to do was say, "Oops. My bad. Syracuse ball." Look at all the calls in baseball that are turned over due to replay.

We could've lost that game because of some technicality that would've served no good purpose.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?