Articles on the "Call"

[swok34]

I suspect there are many, and probably some very good ones....

Here's Mechelle Voepel's take, who was in Norman.....and on the "right" side of the play:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourney04/columns/story?id=1770968

An article within a game recap from the Oklahoma City Paper.... http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=1207487&TP=getcollege

[DblT81]

I agree with Mechelle

BAYLOR DESERVED BETTER!

http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/frown.gif

Baylor fans, it is so hard when things look so bright to have something not expected bring your hopes crashing down, trust me, Tech fans know a little something about how you feel.

Keep your heads up! Baylor will go into next season as one of the conference favorites. An amazing thing -to be disappointed when you deserved to finish another 5 minutes of game time for a chance at the Elite 8- yes, amazing when 4 years ago the program was struggling to stay off the bottom. The Bears have much to be proud of, especially Jessica Stratton, who was there through 4 years of amazing transformation. She and Dionne Brown are going out as seniors who helped the program go where it had never been before. And the future is very bright.

[Raider*61]

Just disgusting!! Never should the game have been decided like that. I feel sorry for the Baylor players and fans! I think Baylor got several bad calls that could have let them win it at the free throw line. Yes the Baylor fans have much to be proud of! You was robbed!!!

[BearLady]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/8308205.htm?ERIGHTS=6342514683806509404kansascity: :dgfulton@sbcglobal.net&KRD_RM=4rpqoknqnprsksrkkkkkkkkkor||N

Mechelle's comments #2

[swok34]

Now, here's an article that sizzles....
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/newstand/re.aspx?reIDx=71DD415F-26EB-4DBC-8F37-67B28E10241D

[YCN]

Ray Ratto chimes in on the Baylor-Tennessee game and the foul in the last second in his unmistakeable and logic-less style.

Ray contends that a foul is a foul no matter where in the game it happens. Of course that logic always works for him, but there is one problem, Ray.

A non-foul is a non-foul no matter where in the game a whistle was blown in error. Incidental contact, no matter how violent, is not a foul on a loose ball play. And that's what the rule says, too.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourney04/columns/story?columnist=ratto_ray&id=1771292

[vickie1ok]

Actually, I think Jenni Carlson's article from the Oklahoman was dead on. Absolutely dead on.

[Guns Up!]

Baylor wants an explanation from the NCAA
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourney04/news/story?id=1771432

[catladyok]

This whole situation reminds me of the movie where Billy Crystal plays the role of an NBA ref who makes a call in the final seconds of a game and the whole crowd is ready to tar and feather him. It was a good call, the right call, but that didn't matter because it was something that nobody wanted to see.

I am still not convinced that this was a bad call. Sure, I wanted an extra 5 minutes as bad as anybody else did. Everybody loves to watch David stick it to Goliath. Everybody except the fans who rode in on Goliath's bus, that is. But the foul did occur, and if the official's arm went up before the horn sounded then the call stands.

I think that the key to the rule interpretation is the matter of displacement. If Tasha had not been knocked down the contact might have been permitted. But since she was upright and in a position where she could conceivably grabbed the ball and was pushed to the ground (or did one heck of a convincing flop), the ref had to blow the whistle. It's not a question of whether he wanted to or not, he simply had to, period.

Imagine what would have happened had he held his whistle and Baylor had won the game in OT! There would be a huge outcry from the Tennessee camp. They'd be saying that the refs 'gave' the game to Baylor. They'd be yelling 'conspiracty' and all the other stuff that we are hearing right now. And they would probably have much better grounds for complaint than we do. The rule does not say that all contact which occurs during a scramble for a loose ball is incidental contact. And there is absolutely no rule which states that you cannot call any fouls in the last x seconds of the game.

And as for 'letting the players decide the outcome of the game', well ... in my mind, the players DID decide the outcome. One player committed a foul and the other one got to shoot two. Bad break, but this stuff just happens.

BTW, I have seen many instances when the clock was re-set before a free throw. I don't recall seeing it done at the end of a period, but it certainly has been done during the rest of the game. No, they don't do it after every foul. They just do it when they need to do it. It isn't done to give a team an extra advantage but rather to make the playing field fair for both teams.

And, much as I hated to see it happen, I think that's exactly what they were doing on Sunday night. I do wish that the NCAA would release an explanation of why this was the right call and why they are accepting it in order to settle the matter among the spectators.

[35TangoTango]

Well, since we're still talking about it, and I'm now experiencing basketball withdrawal, I'll take a quick fix by chipping in my two cents worth.

There are two questions to be considered:

1. Was a foul committed?
2. Should a foul be called?

As to the first question, there seems to be no concensus. Lots of people have watched slow motion replays. Some think that Stratton fouled Butts (though neither player had possession of the ball), others think it was incidental contact between two players with an equal chance at the ball. Just because Butts got knocked over does not automatically mean that Stratton committed a foul. Players collide and go down all the time without a foul being called. Sometimes (as in a late attempt to draw a charge), the player who goes down commits the foul.

But the referee does not get time to look at replays. He sees the action, and has to make a judgement on the spot. He made the judgement that a foul was committed, but let's realize that that's what it was - a judgement call, not a rules interpretation.

As to the second question, "Should a foul be called?". You may think at first that if a foul was committed, a foul should always be called. That's not true. There are situations throughout a game where referees see a foul and don't call it. The one I see a lot, is where a player attempting to rebound on the baseline is bumped and loses the ball out of bounds. Rather than call a foul, the refs will commonly just call the ball out of bounds of the other player (the bumper, not the bumpee). Referees do sometimes use common sense.

The key question as to whether a foul should be called, according to the rules, is whether one side or the other gained an advantage from the contact. Again you see this quite commonly in games. If a defensive player is quarding closely coming down the court and makes contact but it doesn't seem to bother the player with the ball, usually no foul is called. However if the player stumbles or loses the ball as a result of the contact, then the foul is called.

So now, the question of "would this foul be called if it happened early in the game" is really irrelevant. Early in the game, (assuming you believe that Stratton did foul) Baylor might have gained possession of the ball, and Tennessee would have been disadvantaged. In this circumstance, a foul should be called.

However, with .2 seconds left in the game, there is no way either team is going to be advantaged or disadvantaged by the contact. The standard is that it takes at least .3 seconds to gain possession of the ball and launch a shot - they use that standard on last second inbounds plays a lot. Since no advantage was to be gained, under the rules no foul should have been called.

Finally, there's the common sense factor. We have to recognize that deep down, this is the entertainment business. We are able to have competition at this level because people are willing to pay money to see these games (either in person or on television). The customers want to see the game decided by the play. The result of the call was a LOT of unhappy customers! The call was made as a reflex, without time to think about all this; but the head official had time to think about all aspects. A questionable call that if it stands, will decide the game. If it doesn't stand, we have an equal standing and 5 more minutes for the game to be decided. It shouldn't have taken a Solomon to reach that decision. The head official should have overruled the call under any pretext he could find.

[catladyok]

Soonerman, that's exactly why I wish that they would publish their explanation of why or why not this call was accepted. Since I am not a basketball expert I will most happily accept any explanation they offer. But I would just like to know why, that's all.

Funny, but the same people who are harping on 'incidental contact' are the same people who want a so-called 'over the back' foul called on Tennessee during the same scramble!

[40ishHorn]

I don't think it was a foul and I'm on record as stating the over-the-back foul (and it was one) should NOT have been called either.

Refs should have a rule like medical doctors...."first do no harm". There was no harm in playing overtime, unless the ref was just ready to call it a day and go home early that night. http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/rolleyes.gif

[bosley]

As a BU fan who was there at the game, I've got to say that I was heartbroken. There's lots of circular logic that gets spun around when something like this happens. Some will say that the call would have been a foul any other time during the game, so it should be a foul. Well, the fact is that there was a whole lot of banging going on all night long and it wasn't always called as a foul. Some will say that a foul is a foul is a foul. Soonerman's post is pretty enlightened in the cases where a "by the books" definition isn't always the correct call and isn't always called.

All I ask (and have asked for all season) is that the Stripes be consistent. If you're going to call it tight, do so from the tip off. If you're going to let 'em bang, do so until the final whistle. It would seem to me that it's virtually impossible as a coach or player to make adjustments to how the game is going to be called when the rules keep changing. I've watched over and over (with several Big 12 officials, including the one who made "the call") as the game comes down to about 4 minutes left and they start evening up the fouls and the whole flow of the game changes.

I agree that Jenni Carlson's article is pretty much on track. I believe that the evolution of Women's Basketball is toward a more athletic and up-tempo game. It's fun to watch. It puts butts in the seats. The officiating hasn't kept pace. If you relate her article to an earlier article about the KSU girls (was that Voepel?) that talked about the small town girls who are so very "nice", you can see that to compete at the very highest level, you're going to have to put athletes on the court that play very, very tough. Don't get me wrong, I thing KSU has a great program and this year's team was loaded with talent we'd all love to have on our own teams. I'm not advocating "thug ball", but the fact remains that officiating needs to go one way or another so that teams can know how the game is going to be played.

One final word for the folks on this board. I found my way here earlier this season and have to say that it's been a real pleasure taking part in a "higher level" discussion. Our Baylor site has way too many folks who don't really know the game and just are, well, ugly for lack of a better word. It's nice to know that there are other folks out there who love the game, respect the other teams and coaches and can give it up for those who wear different colors than their own. Here's to kindred spirits.

[40ishHorn]

Another article in the Dallas Morning News. This one by Kevin Sherrington entitled "Silence was not Golden" and how officials should be held accountable, and at the very least, answer questions as the coaches and players are required to do after games (many times about their own mistakes in the game).
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/033104dnsposherrington.2a58.html (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/ksherrington/stories/033104dnsposherrington.2a58.html)

[swok34]

very well said, bosley......

[YCN]

Don't forget the rule... Rule 4, Section 38 applies completely, in particular Article 2:

Contact that is incidental to an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact that results when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movement, should be permitted even though the contact may be severe or excessive.

[vickie1ok]

A lot of thoughful responses from Bosley, et al. I would also echo what 40ishhorn said in his link to a DMN story about officiating accountability. This doesn't just apply to women's hoops. We hate seeing the women's game being diminished by officials who are outpaced by the game. However, the accountability issue exists throughout NCAA sports. No one from a conference or the NCAA ever speaks to officiating deficiencies. Yet, coaches and administrators are held to very high standards of accountability and get hammered for merely being emotional.

Chew on this folks: who is the supervisor of officials for the Big 12 conference? I could find no such individual on the Big 12 web page. In fact, there is no link to who the administrators of the Big 12 are now. When we used to be in the Big 8 conference, the supervisor of officials would agree to interviews with local media. Hell, now we don't even know who that individual is.

[This message has been edited by vickie1ok (edited 03-31-2004).]

[Dale8R]

This just in [URL=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/columnist/katesmith/2004-04-01-final-four_x.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/columnist/katesmith/2004-04-01-final-four_x.htm[/ URL]

Kate Smith article :"The whistle heard 'round the world continues to echo." The NCAA will study the situation at this weekend's meeting. Good rundown of the FF teams at the bottom of the article.

**********
Actually, I guess you'd call it an FT story ~~ nothing on LSU.

[This message has been edited by Dale8R (edited 04-01-2004).]

[Guns Up!]

Correct link:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/columnist/katesmith/2004-04-01-final-four_x.htm

[Dale8R]

Thanks for that. Don't know what happened there, must have gotten messed up when I made my edit. I'll try to check my work next time!