Rewatching the end. My god, that ref.

[upperdeck]

i dont recall the last time i actually saw that play happen. i have seen a few times where the ball was passed over mid court and the offense not actually possessing it before the 10 count and it not get call and a few times the 10 count called when the clock only ran 9 secs.

one other thing i cant understand is the free throw rule says you cant stand perpendicular to the lane yet i see it all the time and never see it called? a rule that is just ignored?

 

[upperdeck]

Many are saying the other ref could have reversed the call, which is simply not the case. You can't reverse a call where the ball went out of bounds. But you can't reverse a call and say the ball is still in bounds (when you stopped play) Of course in this case they had the foul bailout.

Not to say the back ref was an idiot for making that call, and they made things worse going for a review of something they could not reverse... and then realizing that ". . . . , we can't reverse this" and lying about it to the announcers.

you dont reverse it you discuss it and decide who had the better view. much like the foul/travel calls we see all the time.

strange thing is they review the line for baskets made on a 3 but no review on out of bounds calls why is one more important than the other?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

you dont reverse it you discuss it and decide who had the better view. much like the foul/travel calls we see all the time.

strange thing is they review the line for baskets made on a 3 but no review on out of bounds calls why is one more important than the other?

Yeah, but you can't go to the monitor to overrule another ref. Which is what would have happened if they did it right.

 

[upperdeck]

i agree no monitor review , but top level refs should talk it over and make sure the agree with the call at akey point of a game like that. HS refs i get making that mistake.

 

[jncuse]

you dont reverse it you discuss it and decide who had the better view. much like the foul/travel calls we see all the time.

Nope. Totally different situations.

In those foul situations whatever the call they decide on, the game would have been stopped. They never stop the game for a foul, discuss it, and call no foul. They might discuss who to call the foul on, but "no call" is not an option.

In last night's situation, one call results in a stoppage the other doesn't. If they decide the ball was inbounds, then the game should have never been stopped. So you can't reverse it at this point ... although they could have called a foul as a bailout. But just imagine a situation where Gonzaga was not close to the ball. The other ref is powerless.

 

[jncuse]

i agree no monitor review , but top level refs should talk it over and make sure the agree with the call at akey point of a game like that. HS refs i get making that mistake.

You can't reverse a call where in the end you think the right decision was that the ball was inbounds. How do you correct that under the rules?

It's easy to reverse a call, when both options properly result in a stoppage of play.

This is my entire point -- the other ref (unless he wanted to use the foul bailout) was totally powerless by the current rules.

There is all kinds of screw up on the call, but the other ref not overruling him was not one of them.

 

[rrlbees]

Between coaches, players and refs, the refs are the least competent. They prove it every game and have the easiest job of the 3. They blow so many calls every game.

 

[bballbeadle]

That's unbelievable. That's the ref bet on the game kind of BS.

No way in the world he can make that call.

Completely indefensible.

He got lucky we closed it out.

That was not luck. That was the Universe.

 

[upperdeck]

no he is not.. say cooney was 6 inches in bounds and the baseline ref saw that.. no way that call stands , i dont think he was 100% sure and let it go.. the refs have a obligation to get calls right and should discuss it especially at that point of a game.. i dont have an issue with the baseline guy letting it go since he didnt have the greatest of view to something that happened pretty fast.. i have a problem if he did see it well and didnt at least have the discussion. thats why guys are supposed to cover their areas and not get involved in calls that cant really see.

 

[tep624]

Anyone who thinks refs are above being biased 1 way or another must live in the celestial city

Biased? No. Arrogant, incompetent (sideline ref) and Aloof (Baseline ref)?

YES.

 

[Dave85]

That's unbelievable. That's the ref bet on the game kind of BS.

No way in the world he can make that call.

Completely indefensible.

He got lucky we closed it out.

It felt like we were playing Duke at Cameron.

 

[tep624]

Between coaches, players and refs, the refs are the least competent. They prove it every game and have the easiest job of the 3. They blow so many calls every game.

The baseline ref HAS to make that call. And since the ball was there, and as a ref you should be following the ball...I have no idea how he did not make that call. Whatever the motivation, that whole sequence definitely didn't pass the smell test.

 

[sutomcat]

Okay, a couple things: first, the ref was at the top of the three point line extended, so that puts him about 25 feet away, not 45 , no offense intended to anyone. In the three man rotation, that's roughly where he's supposed to be in that situation, because he was "middle away" when the play began. Lead and trail were both ball side as the play began, also right where they're supposed to be. The problem came as the player with the ball drove into the lane along the baseline, and crossed the face of lead as he did. NBD, happens all the time. Lead's primary responsibility there is to "stay with the players" (with his eyes) in the lane after the dish to the corner. The territory between the lane and sideline in that situation is middle's primary, anyway. It's a gap that will always occur on that play, because if lead mirrors the ball there (comes across the lane even with the ball) he'll be too close to the play to see a foul, should one occur. Remember the basket support is only a few feet off the baseline. It's a tough call because that corner will always be "uncovered" in that type of play. Part of me wonders if perhaps the ref was reluctant to put SU on the free throw line with 12 seconds left under the "gotta be blood" principle, and making the out of bounds call was the way to avoid doing that. And I'm sure that came out in the post-game. Yes, it was potentially a game-changing mistake, but it didn't cost us. I wonder what would have happened if Lydon had fouled the shooter (he clearly got ball first, and the ensuing contact was minimal).

Okay, I grant that he was about 25 feet away.

Was expecting you would say that it is indefensible for a ref to make that call given where he was and the fact he blocked out and had no idea if the call he made was correct or not. He didn't just have one body he needed to see through; he had two (and maybe a third; not 100% sure about that one).

He also missed the push on Cooney which almost forced him out of bounds.

I was shocked at his willingness to change the outcome of a game with nothing to go on except a guess. You don't make that call from that position unless you can see what is going on.

 

[nyhc666]

You don't make that call from that position unless you can see what is going on.

there is a MAJOR problem with A LOT of refs these days and this is exactly it!!!! too many guys are making calls that are really not theirs to make (see Mike Stephens)...Superman vision is in effect with some of these guys...who is policing this????

 

[patcuse]

Okay, a couple things: first, the ref was at the top of the three point line extended, so that puts him about 25 feet away, not 45 , no offense intended to anyone. In the three man rotation, that's roughly where he's supposed to be in that situation, because he was "middle away" when the play began. Lead and trail were both ball side as the play began, also right where they're supposed to be. The problem came as the player with the ball drove into the lane along the baseline, and crossed the face of lead as he did. NBD, happens all the time. Lead's primary responsibility there is to "stay with the players" (with his eyes) in the lane after the dish to the corner. The territory between the lane and sideline in that situation is middle's primary, anyway. It's a gap that will always occur on that play, because if lead mirrors the ball there (comes across the lane even with the ball) he'll be too close to the play to see a foul, should one occur. Remember the basket support is only a few feet off the baseline. It's a tough call because that corner will always be "uncovered" in that type of play.

Part of me wonders if perhaps the ref was reluctant to put SU on the free throw line with 12 seconds left under the "gotta be blood" principle, and making the out of bounds call was the way to avoid doing that. And I'm sure that came out in the post-game. Yes, it was potentially a game-changing mistake, but it didn't cost us. I wonder what would have happened if Lydon had fouled the shooter (he clearly got ball first, and the ensuing contact was minimal).

Gotta be blood please it was an intentional bear hug to stop the clock. No dout about that it was the easy part.

 

[Cowtown]

Gotta be blood please it was an intentional bear hug to stop the clock. No dout about that it was the easy part.

It was ruled he stepped on the line first, which made the bear hug incidental. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just telling you what happened.

 

[JarHeadJim]

 

[patcuse]

It was ruled he stepped on the line first, which made the bear hug incidental. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just telling you what happened.

I know what the ruling was. To say he called the step out to avoid calling the foul was just silly

 

[bpo57]

Okay, a couple things: first, the ref was at the top of the three point line extended, so that puts him about 25 feet away, not 45 , no offense intended to anyone. In the three man rotation, that's roughly where he's supposed to be in that situation, because he was "middle away" when the play began. Lead and trail were both ball side as the play began, also right where they're supposed to be. The problem came as the player with the ball drove into the lane along the baseline, and crossed the face of lead as he did. NBD, happens all the time. Lead's primary responsibility there is to "stay with the players" (with his eyes) in the lane after the dish to the corner. The territory between the lane and sideline in that situation is middle's primary, anyway. It's a gap that will always occur on that play, because if lead mirrors the ball there (comes across the lane even with the ball) he'll be too close to the play to see a foul, should one occur. Remember the basket support is only a few feet off the baseline. It's a tough call because that corner will always be "uncovered" in that type of play.

Part of me wonders if perhaps the ref was reluctant to put SU on the free throw line with 12 seconds left under the "gotta be blood" principle, and making the out of bounds call was the way to avoid doing that. And I'm sure that came out in the post-game. Yes, it was potentially a game-changing mistake, but it didn't cost us. I wonder what would have happened if Lydon had fouled the shooter (he clearly got ball first, and the ensuing contact was minimal).

The "gotta be blood principle" is essentially the notion that you don't decide the outcome of the game really late unless you're damn sure of the call. How on earth could this idiot been damn sure of that call? NFW.

Btw this ref is the same guy that threw Calipari out of the South Carolina game this year with two rapid fire technicals in the first few minutes. Has a rep for over-officiating.

 

[Cowtown]

I know what the ruling was. To say he called the step out to avoid calling the foul was just silly

Really? How much experience in officiating have you? Apart from bitching about it, that is?

 

[bpo57]

Really? How much experience in officiating have you? Apart from bitching about it, that is?

It was a ridiculous call. You're trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[patcuse]

Really? How much experience in officiating have you? Apart from bitching about it, that is?

Didn't mean to make you mad. What you wrote was stupid. Stop acting like a ref and making stuff up after making the wrong call.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

View attachment 58600

Jarhead, you're gonna do your lucky post, right?

 

[Cowtown]

Didn't mean to make you mad. What you wrote was stupid. Stop acting like a ref and making stuff up after making the wrong call.

I'm taking that as a "none." Mad? Don't flatter yourself. I put the thought out there as a possibility, you know. That's what that "part of me wonders if ..." means. Sorry you missed that. Good thing you're not a ref, huh?

 

[JarHeadJim]

Jarhead, you're gonna do your lucky post, right?

A;ready up my Brother!