Travesty of Officiating

that nova call was a joke. I did not see the tennessee play, but the official in the nova game should be suspended the remainder of the year for that call.

Also, it seemed like our game was allowed to be awfully physical, especially with KU big guys bumping our guards on perimeter switches.
 
I assume Rutgers will file an official protest, but is there anything that can be actually done about it? Technically the game should have been over after the Tennessee miss, so it seems that they should review it and declare Rutgers the winner.
 
The ref had a clear look at the play, and let's say he saw clearly that Wallace's foot was on the line (it's tough to see from most of the replay angles, but in one it does look like his foot is on the line). Does he blow the whistle and give the ball to Villanova? If he doesn't, and replays clearly show Wallace steps out (which they might, for all he knows), then that's an obvious blown call that could lead to his suspension. How does he explain missing that to the league when the videotape is sent to the front office? He knows there's not much time on the clock, but he doesn't know how much -- could be enough time for Nova to get a shot off.

So, if in his mind Wallace is clearly out of bounds, he has to determine whether contact by the defender forced him out. If it did, you call the foul. If it didn't, you call out of bounds. It's hard to swallow the whistle at that point.

Now, if he didn't clearly see that Wallace stepped out ... I got nothing.
 
Watching that joke at the end of the Villanova / Georgetown game last nite, it was interesting to hear Bilas, Phelps and Stacy Dales saying things like the "referee should maybe should have swallowed his whistle" or "that's a tough call to make in that situation".

Sean McDonough was doing play by play on the game for ESPN. He used words like "travesty", "ridiculous" and "embarrassing" in the aftermath of the call. He always calls things like he sees them, and isn't afraid to say so in a manner that most would not. He does a good job, consistently.
 
I'm SURE I will get flamed for this but here goes:

Let me first preface this by saying I coach HS basketball and would be super pissed with the last call if I was coaching in the NOVA/GT game, but IT WAS A FOUL. The Nova player clearly bumped him out of bounds and the ref was forced to make a call. Would that be called a foul in the 1st half? I think definately and no one would argue. If it's a foul in the first half, then it should be a foul in the 2nd half. I agree that it's a bad way for a game to end, but the ref didn't go foul that guy.

Now if you want to argue that you don't think that the contact was a foul, then that's a different story. I am simply making the point that I thought it was a foul (even though not the hardest) and since the ballhandler was forced out of bounds DUE TO CONTACT you have to make the call.
 
I agree with OUSucksA&MBlows completely.

If it is a foul in the first 39:59.9 of the game it is still a foul with .:00.1 too. There is no rule that says you do not call that because of the clock. I think the guy bumped him and was forcing him out of bounds. The ref does not know how much time is left. What if the GT player had been forced out with :00.07 seconds left and he does not call it a foul. Then Nova would have had an inbounds play that could have won the game. If it is a foul it is a foul....as long as the horn has not sounded.

Those of you who disagree because the game was almost over are wrong and you probably don't think a middle infielder has to actually touch second base on a double play either.
biggrin.gif
 
There wasn't a foul called with 5 seconds left when Scotty Reynolds was bumped while going to the basket, so it shouldn't have been a foul when the Georgetown player was going up the sideline as time expired.
 
On Sportscenter while discussing the Tenn/Rutgers game, they said that the clock was synced up with the ref's whistle and that there must have been an inadvertent whistle that paused the clock.

confused.gif


If I'm Rutgers' coach, I'd pull my team off the floor and leave with .2 seconds left. **** 'em. If they want to give a team a win with some home cookin', they can do it without me.
 
Care to elaborate there? If that's a foul then there should be about 20 more fouls called in every game on defenders on the perimeter. Take away the sideline there - ie just move the players over about 10 feet towards the middle of the court, and nobody in the world says he got fouled.
 
I've always thought when people talk about not making certain calls in the final seconds, what they mean is during the course of a game there are all kinds of 50/50 situations and we realize the refs are human and the calls may go either way. So it's better not to turn them into rule book robots all of a sudden when the game is on the line. Nova turned it over, GU didn't have time for a realistic shot, so it should have gone overtime.

If anyone saw the overtimes of Indiana-Illinois this week, there was a mugging of an Indiana guy trying to launch a 75-footer after a missed FT at the buzzer. Technically, it was a legit foul and he should have gone to the line for three shots (game was tied so that would have ended it). But the refs did the right thing and let it go another OT.
 
You have to look at the bright side of the call at the end of the Nova-GTown game: If the ref doesn't make that call, those watching on TV miss the first 5-10 minutes of the UT game, instead of just missing the first 2 minutes.
 
that gtown/nova call was a GREAT call, cause it got two ****** teams from a lame *** conference that ain't worth two spits off of the damn TV and the Texas game on TV. That ending beats the hell out of that ****** game going to overtime and ruining my viewing pleasure. f nova, f gtown, f the big least.
 
As a ref, you don't want to be noticed and that is the measure of a good game.

Calling a foul with 2 seconds left gets you noticed. For the most part, the rule book does not give concrete A or B options. It very much depends on interpretation and quick judgment calls. The situation of the game is a valid measurement of foul just as calling a tight game or a loose game is valid. the only thing that is needed to validate any of those three interpretations is consistency.
 
I don't think it was a foul in the Nova game. That's why it stinks. I agree that fouls should be called the same throughout the game. This "touch foul" was a joke.

On the other hand I see no one is saying anything about the Rutgers game. No one can thinks the refs were right. I hope they get disciplined.
 
That was ridiculous. Buckman was fouling the guy before the shot so he'd only get either a 1 and 1 or 2 FTs and not have a chance to score 3 points. As soon as the guy realizes he's getting fouled he throws the ball in the direction of the basket and it gets called a shooting foul.

As for the earlier retort that massive violence hasn't happened, that's really irrelevant - if you clearly hack a guy on the arm while he's shooting, it's a foul, no matter the percentage the shot had of going in. A foul on a dunk attempt results in 2 FTs just like a foul on an 18 foot fadeaway does.
 
ESPN ran a replay of the nova/georgetown call immediately after it was made, and wallace's foot never touched the baseline.

Even so, a foul in that situation should have to be one that has no choice but to be called, like if a guy drives and gets the crap knocked out of him. or a guy mugs him to prevent him from taking a shot, but that call was neither.
 
The contact didn't cause the player to go out of bounds - trying to thread the narrow space between a defender and the sideline caused him to go out of bounds.
 
if that was the case, then the foul call is even more egregious. I wasn't sure if his foot ever touched out, but I know they showed the contact and his foot never touched out of bounds during it.
 
Watching the replay, there was definitely contact, and that contact was initiated by the defender stepping into Wallace.

2261065998_9035e1f282_o.jpg


And, for what it's worth, the Big East is standing by the ref, advancing the "he either stepped out of bounds or was forced out by a foul" line of argument that's been mentioned before.


link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top