The final last final final last post on the Oregon thing (and other news)
by Jeff Nusser on Jan 6, 2010 3:46 PM PST
Email
PrintOK, OK ... I know we said no more. But even though we've more than said our piece, not every other outlet has, so I felt like I had to pass this along.
This was in Bud Withers' column this morning at The Seattle Times:
The controversial end to the first overtime has already reached the highest echelon of oversight in NCAA basketball officiating. Pac-10 coordinator of officials Bill McCabe has discussed it with NCAA officials coordinator John Adams, who has taken it up with Ed Bilik, veteran secretary-editor of the rules committee.
"In my four years on the job," McCabe said Tuesday, "this is the most unpleasant one."
McCabe said Adams told him, in reference to the debate, "We don't want our games to end this way. It's not good for college basketball."
Gee, isn't that what we've been saying all along?
I guess if there's anything good to come out of this debacle, it's this:
McCabe says a likely outcome is a tightened interpretation of the rule, mandating that an official would have to start the inbounds count or the player would have to begin his throwing motion.
Of course, the funny-but-not-humorous part of this is that this "interpretation" of this rule is that it's not really an interpretation at all -- it's what's already in the rulebook. But I am happy that they're apparently going to make sure the referees understand the rule, exercise the proper amount of discretion and hope that this never happens again.
As for the referees? No word on whether they're being censured (it sure doesn't sound like it), however ...
"The officials are very, very depressed," McCabe says. "Nobody likes the ending to this thing."
And, again, the funny-but-not-humorous thing about it is that it didn't have to end this way. They had plenty of time to make the right decision. They still chose the wrong one. Oddly enough, they didn't look depressed in the second overtime. They didn't look depressed at the end of the game. One can only assume they're depressed because of the barrage of justified criticism they've received.
Here's to hoping they become better officials because of it.
On to other miscellaneous news ...
- The start time for Sunday's game at ASU has been moved up an hour to accommodate fans in the Phoenix area who want to watch the Cardinals host the Packers later in the day. The new tip time is 11:30 a.m. PST. It's still on FSN. Nothing else has changed.
- The football team had its banquet and handed out its team awards, and in no surprise to anyone, Kenny Alfred needed a wheelbarrow to cart all of his home. We love Kenny around here and think that's great.
95 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Took'em a week
to figure out what we already knew in 5 minutes.
I was watching Sportscenter last night
There was outrage in the Denver game that a foul was called on a last second heave (wasn’t really a foul, either) because a game should not come down to a refs call. Sound firmilar?
Withers-
“There’s dispute over whether, by the time Oregon tried to inbound, the fan and player were still cluttering the floor, but nobody seems to have video to reinforce it. "
Uhhhh, there is video, what is he talking about.? They never even went towards the sideline to inbound, they only stood there then walked towards their own bench.
Well, we're making a little bit of an inference on the video
Common sense gives us the answer, but the video doesn’t show everything from start to finish.
Yeah, it's unfortunate
But the video doesn’t really show where any player was when the actual technical was signalled. Now, what I would love to see is an all court view from a non-tv camera, something that a team might have if they were scouting or taping to review the game. But it’s over, time to move on.
Yeah, my point was
regardless of when the T was called, there was not effort to inbound.
by spencer peaty on Jan 6, 2010 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
By the way, apparently Andy Katz noticed my Twitter barrage
He retroactively added a link to our breakdown in his post. That was mighty nice of him.
Way to go Nuss!
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on Jan 6, 2010 4:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
He seems to be a good writer who geniuinely cares about the accuracy of his articles
Even for a blog post, that’s good to see.
Also, basketball highlights on the sidebar!!!
You noticed!
I actually updated that literally 10 minutes ago. That’s so funny.
Also, I think Katz does care, but I also feel like he’s been passed by Jeff Goodman. He’s really good. Nonetheless, I gotta keep a guy on his toes — you can’t just blindly pass along stuff like that. I know it’s hard when you’re a national guy, but you’ve got to at least do a little due diligence.
That said, I probably overreacted. :-)
Cougs pick up a football verbal
Kristoff Williams (6-2/205) receiver that probably projects to defense as well at either safety or olb. He’s another Bay Area player so while he comes in at position they are heavy in this class maybe it is just another reasy for Thompson and Murphy to come to Pullman as well. That’s my hope anyway.
I never have heard a quote like that from McCabe about being “very, very depressed…” without also a “we messed it up” attached to it as well. Oh well. It is what it is.
OSU is getting run by Seattle U at half
Down 14
by Brian Floyd on Jan 6, 2010 6:30 PM PST via mobile reply actions
following our formula
122 full court press and 2 3 half court. All this without Garcia
by Brian Floyd on Jan 6, 2010 6:35 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I know OSU is struggling..
but SU is just taking them to the freaking woodshed in all aspects of the game.
I’m no Dollar fan, but if he can get athletes to Seattle U. (which it looks like he can), they are going to be a fun team to watch in the future.
Bombed at home
Too much expectations? How do you allow that at this point in the season?
Seattle U has wins over
Oregon State, Utah, and Fresno State. I would say they are not very far away from a WCC invite.
by spencer peaty on Jan 6, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Few has a lot of power
But does he have that much power? Does it require 100 percent of the conference to approve it for SU to get in? It would seem a logical fit, it would bring more money and increase the stature of the conference, I’m not sure that other WCC schools would be against it.
Yeah, could be
But I just don’t see what Gonzaga’s argument will be long term. It’s the only conference that makes sense for SU, as they don’t have or want to have a football program and so the WAC and obviously the Pac-10 aren’t going to be even remotely interested. And the same holds true for Gonzaga, they start getting a little too big for the conference and other WCC schools might start rumbling that they should leave. They have no where else to go. I know Gonzaga doesn’t want SU in, but I guess I just assume that the pressure will be too great to keep them out forever. Maybe for a first go around, but not forever.
Money and scheduling
9 teams creates scheduling problems and more teams mean splitting the pot more ways. If they add one they need to add two and right now they don’t want to split the revenue from TV and the likes 10 ways.
I see the scheduling, but not the money
SU has an agreement with FSN already. They will bring in TV revenue that would increase the pot by at least the share they take out.
As far as scheduling, it would mean more conference games and fewer non-conference, which affects the money teams can get paid to go take beatings on the road. But you get to play in a larger arena and bring in a major media market.
TV revenue
It wouldn’t really increase. They would be taking the same amount revenue, because they wouldn’t necessarily be increasing the televised games, and splitting it amongst two extra teams as far as I see it.
But why do they have to bring in two teams?
Why not just bring in SU? And I wouldn’t say increase in revenue from TV, but also not decrease. Seattle U is getting on TV and creating revenue that they would bring to the conference, that’s all I’m saying.
The way I see it
9 teams creates an unbalanced conference (scheduling). Sure SU gets on TV now as an independent, but once they are part of the conference, they’ll get thrown into the jumble of conference TV. The reason they get it so much now is they are playing independently, on nights that aren’t competed against by the big teams.
The way I see it, revenue stays the same, but there is another mouth to feed (2 if they have to add 2 teams).
The officials are very, very depressed......
Nobody but Oregon likes the ending to this thing.
Fixed.
And now UCLA is tied with Cal with 4 to play
This conference is going to be wacky if these first few weeks are setting the tone. I knew anything could happen, not sure I expected bottom teams to beat top teams so readily…and possibly to have only Oregon (cough) as the only team without a conference loss after a week and a half. But Cal hasn’t lost yet.
Good coaches adjust to their talent
He doesn’t have the horses to play man to man all game. Wears out the few players he has, and exposes their weaknesses. Howland will find ways to get some conference wins, possibly starting tonight.
OT
I see this going to Cal…since UCLA couldn’t find a way to even get a shot off with the ball at the end of the game.
showing more grit and determination then I gave them credit for
Cal is relying on the 3’s too much.
Off the deflection, to the scrappy white guy, pull up from the FT line
Howland had his whiteboard working overtime
you want shocking?
Indiana ran a 2-3 against Ohio St all night. INDIANA. That’s like telling Nebraska not to run the option anymore.
Anyone else see the ref jump in front of UCLA's bench there?
That would have been nice.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
Definitely UCLA players on the court
It is nice that the refs are so consistent
That is so true
Unfortunately, there are haves and have not’s. WSU is in the have not’s.
It is fun though!
Two games down to the wire. “Underdog” wins both.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
The Pac 10
Where everyone finishing 9-9 happens.
No
They aren’t playing in it. Part of their self appointed punishment.
I just went back and watched the "technical" again
and it makes me even madder every time that I see the play. Their player thinks the game is over and walks up midway up to the foul line. He thought the game was OVER. If he didn’t, he could have taken the ball out of bounds and easily inbounded the ball. None of the other four players were covered.
In essence, the Cougars were penalized because the Oregon player thought the game was over.
I went back and watched the replay because of the end of the UCLA-CAL game. Roll picked up the loose ball and shoots and scores with 1.8 seconds left. Several UCLA players came onto the court in celebration.
Again, any way you want to slice it, that was a bad call.
NCAA updates end of game rules
This kind of shows that the NCAA thinks the Pac 10 refs made a mistake.
Look at the date of the update.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/NCAA/Sports%20and%20Championship/Basketball/Mens/Playing%20Rules/
When a delay by a jubilant follower(s) or bench personnel before player activity has been terminated does not prevent the ball from being put in play promptly or does not interfere with continuous play, the delay shall be ignored, order shall be restored and play shall be resumed.
I should also clarify that when using the link
go the the section called “Updates.” Notice what they have underlined.
From the OSU blog
It was the worst home loss ever, not just in the 60 years of Gill Coliseum, for the Beavers, and tied for the worst Oregon St. loss of all time anywhere.
Well done, Seattle U. Even if OSU isn’t any good, doing this to a pac-10 team is a good way to make a name for yourselves.
Totally OT, but I don't think it justifies a FanPost or FanShot
Does CougCenter have site statistics for 2009? I saw it on a few of the other Pac-10 SBN blogs, just was curious if we kept similar statistics and if they show anything interesting about the blog’s readership.
For example:
http://www.azdesertswarm.com/2010/1/7/1238516/azdesertswarm-com-2009-stats
Check Out This Response From John Adams/Head of NCAA Officiating
At least John took the time to respond and seems to indicate that the rule will be reviewed. I wait with baited breathe to see the ‘new official interpretation’ that he intimates will be forthcoming any day now, for the bottom line is if you don’t like the rule, change it, eh?
This might just be worthy of a whole story unto itself, for it seems to me that these issues always occur in what are perceived to be the back waters of the country and unless a public outcry ensues, nothing gets changed and it remains swept under the rug. Me thinks we need to make it clear that the Palouse will not be silenced in such a manner and that we are not the village idiots that they think we are, i.e. we can read/interrupt the intent of a rule as well as anyone and recognize a hose job when we see it.
From: John W. Adams [mailto:jwasports1@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: WSU/Oregon Technical Foul in OT Clarification
Thanks again for your note. Every play for referees is a judgement call vs. the standard or the official interp of a/the rule. This play is particularly tough because it is not reviewable on a courtside monitor and it was the officiating crew’s judgement that the players and fan on the floor were going to impede OR’s opportunity to inbound the ball. I have spoken to the officials, Bill McCabe and the Secretary Rules Editor about trying to remove the gray area in this play. I expect an official interp any day now, that will say, unless the players and/or fans actually are bothering or preventing the thrower in or his teammates from putting the ball in play, you should stop the game, restore order, and put the ball in play on the baseline.
My comment about “not wanting our games to end this way” meant, that as a fan and an administrator, I would always rather have a close game won or lost by a made or missed last second shot. I don’t however, have a problem, with officials exercising their best judgement and applying the rules to create a fair environment for both teams. That’s what the crew did, and while that kind of ending certainly left a bad taste in quite a few people’s mouths, they did what they thought was right and it involved interpreting a rule.
Hope this explanation helps a little bit. Thanks for being a college basketball fan and your interest in this game.
John W. Adams
317-590-3736
To: ‘jwasports1@aol.com’ <jwasports1@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 11:58 am
Subject: RE: WSU/Oregon Technical Foul in OT Clarification
John-
Thank you for your prompt response to my question and in this day of quotes being taken out of context, I understand your wanting to know who you are speaking with. I am just a concerned fan who is very interested in maintaining the highest integrity possible in the game of college basketball which I love.
From: jwasports1@aol.com [mailto:jwasports1@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: WSU/Oregon Technical Foul in OT Clarification
Before I reply, could you tell me who you are? “Just a fan” is ok but if you are a reporter or administrator, I would like to know. Thx.
John W. Adams
317-590-3736
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:33:26 0800
To: ‘jwasports1@aol.com’<jwasports1@aol.com>
Subject: WSU/Oregon Technical Foul in OT Clarification
John
Bud Wither’s wrote an excellent article in today’s edition of the Seattle Times (attached below) which hits at the heart of the issue, i.e. allowing referee discretion to decide the game via an interpretation of a rule. To wit, this rule needs to be reviewed/modified (particularly in lieu of the fact that television review is now an accepted fact in the course of College Basketball/Sports in general) such that ‘judgment calls’ are minimized, especially when they alter the outcome of the game.
My issue revolves around the fact that no other college team in America today should ever find themselves in a similar situation at the end of the game as we move forward, as the beauty of College Athletics is that emotion plays a large part in the game and to stifle that would be wrong. I would be most interested in hearing your take on this situation, fully recognizing that you can’t change the outcome of the game in question. Please advise.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
This makes me both happy and angry
On the one hand, I’m happy that someone is finally acknowledging that the refs made a rule interpretation based on anticipation of something that was likely to violate the actual rules, rather than waiting for the actual event that would have been the actual violation:
it was the officiating crew’s judgement that the players and fan on the floor were going to impede OR’s opportunity to inbound the ball.
But again, this is what makes me angry. Why, in the immediate wake of this game, was this not addressed? The refs and Pac-10 supervisor continued to spout their baseless defense, when their own rule book clearly does not allow for “going to impede” to be part of the equation in their judgment. Which, incidentally, is exactly why Adams expects an official ruling that reflects exactly what’s already in their book. They’re not even changing a rule to make this happen.
When this “interpretation” comes down, it’s going to be tantamount to an admission that the referees made a mistake. That will be of little consolation to me.
Interesting response by Adams. What about the UCLA-Cal game?
That’s an interesting response from Adams, “…it was the officiating crew’s judgement that the players and fan on the floor were going to impede OR’s opportunity to inbound the ball.”
Did anyone else notice Montgomery in the middle of the court trying to get a timeout called with about one minute left in the game last night? I don’t remember if it was the end of regulation or overtime, but Cal had just tied the game. UCLA’s player had the ball out-of-bounds and was actually ready to throw the ball in. Montgomery came flying onto the court, near the elbow of the key, trying to get a time-out, directly in front of the inbounder. So now I’m curiuos. Did Montgomery not impede UCLA’s opportunity to inbounds the ball before a time out was finally called?
Wait an hour or so
There have been new developments on the interpretation, and I’m working on a post. Very interesting stuff.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
