Only in the Pac-10!

[AdaSooner]

Am I the only one who finds the official's call in this situation an ironic reversal of what we normally hear about officiating? Officials typically ignore violations in the final seconds of games because they "don't want to decide the outcome."

Yet, an official calls a technical foul when players and at least one fan came onto the court, thinking the game was over and their team had won. I could understand that call if there had been 3 seconds left, not 0.3 of a second. That's not even enough time to do more than bat the ball at the basket in an attempt to score.

The irony that the Oregon Ducks were once again the recipient of Pac-10 officiating didn't escape my attention either. I may never get over that one! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!

Disputed foul in Oregon game will stand
Associated Press

SPOKANE, Wash. -- A controversial technical foul that cost Washington State a basketball victory over Oregon will not be overturned.

WSU athletic director Jim Sterk said a review of the call by the Pacific-10 Conference concluded the foul call was correct and Oregon's win would stand.

Washington State appeared to have won the Dec. 31 game in Pullman when they scored with 0.3 of a second left in the first overtime, and several WSU bench players and at least one fan stepped onto the court.

The game officials ruled that stepping onto the court prevented continuous play, and awarded Oregon a technical foul and two free throws. The free throws tied the game and the Ducks won in the second overtime.

Sterk said the Cougars have no other recourse.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4846942

 

[campbest]

Am I the only one who finds the official's call in this situation an ironic reversal of what we normally hear about officiating? Officials typically ignore violations in the final seconds of games because they "don't want to decide the outcome."

Yet, an official calls a technical foul when players and at least one fan came onto the court, thinking the game was over and their team had won. I could understand that call if there had been 3 seconds left, not 0.3 of a second. That's not even enough time to do more than bat the ball at the basket in an attempt to score.

The irony that the Oregon Ducks were once again the recipient of Pac-10 officiating didn't escape my attention either. I may never get over that one! GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!





http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4846942

The only thing controversial about the call was the fact that ESPN used that adjective in the article...it was the right call. You can excuse the fan, but Wazzu had players running onto the court before time had expired. Where were the assistants and GAs holding the players back? Have some restraint. Tough for me to feel bad for Wazzu when they had two more periods to get the job done against a woeful Oregon team.

Also, the Pac-10 notion is false, it happen everywhere to some extent. Look at the events last night from the Louisville-Seton Hall game, that was by far a worse call (or actually no call) than the Wazzu-UO instance. I honestly can't believe the official didn't whistle Seton Hall for an inbounds violation, completely asinine.

 

[AdaSooner]

I know the call was correct by rule. My point was more about the contradiction between officials sucking on their whistles in the last few seconds because they don't want to be part of the outcome, and a call with 3/10 of a second left that did exactly what officials claim they try to avoid.

An obvious foul in the final seconds of a game is a violation, too. Yet, those calls are ignored. I fail to see the difference. But, maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[campbest]

I know the call was correct by rule. My point was more about the contradiction between officials sucking on their whistles in the last few seconds because they don't want to be part of the outcome, and a call with 3/10 of a second left that did exactly what officials claim they try to avoid.

An obvious foul in the final seconds of a game is a violation, too. Yet, those calls are ignored. I fail to see the difference. But, maybe I'm missing something here.

Not sure how you can avoid half of Wazzu's reserves running onto the court of play as UO is taking the ball out. In addition, the term "obvious" to me is stating that everyone in the gym knew it was a foul, which is undebatable and therefore most of the time will be whistled. However, if it's borderline, more times than not the official is going to let it go. I personally have never had a problem with that.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

does anybody have a video of this? It would clear up alot

 

[AdaSooner]

Not sure how you can avoid half of Wazzu's reserves running onto the court of play as UO is taking the ball out. In addition, the term "obvious" to me is stating that everyone in the gym knew it was a foul, which is undebatable and therefore most of the time will be whistled. However, if it's borderline, more times than not the official is going to let it go. I personally have never had a problem with that.

Yeah, you may have a point. If the clock was stopped with time still left in the game, it would be hard to ignore. I wasn't there, so I'm not in a position to judge what the officials did under the circumstances.

But it's not like that was the first time players have stepped onto the floor because they thought a basketball game was over. Football players do it, too. Officials usually hold up play temporarily until order has been restored, and then start the game again.

I'm not saying what they did was not within the rules, just that it could have been handled differently if the intent was to let the players on the court legally, decide the outcome. That's the problem I see with what the officials did in this instance.

 

[campbest]

But it's not like that was the first time players have stepped onto the floor because they thought a basketball game was over. Football players do it, too. Officials usually hold up play temporarily until order has been restored, and then start the game again.

I agree, but just because it might have been let go before doesn't make it right...just as your reference concerning a foul at the end of the game.

I'm not saying what they did was not within the rules, just that it could have been handled differently if the intent was to let the players on the court legally, decide the outcome. That's the problem I see with what the officials did in this instance.

Would tend to agree more if UO's free throws had won them the game, however, Wazzu was given two separate 5 minute overtimes to seal the deal and still couldn't get it done on their home floor over a sub-par UO team. As much as Wazzu's coaching staff wanted to protest and be irate at the officials, you pay your assistants/GAs for bench control...that is their job. The officials in this instance can't be held liable.

 

[MsProudSooner]

does anybody have a video of this? It would clear up alot

I agree. Did they 'step out onto the court' or run to the middle and celebrate?

Yes, technically it was the correct call. Unfortunately, it happens all the time and 99% of the officials use common sense, ignore it, make everyone go back to their bench and have the team throw the ball in.

 

[campbest]

Talk about swallowing the whistle.....

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=300212550

 

[MsProudSooner]

Talk about swallowing the whistle.....

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=300212550

Was this the game where the player tried to throw the ball in from inbounds and the official let him step back out of bounds and do it again?

 

[scrybe]

I completely agree with you, Ada. I believe your assertion was that it made no difference that a few WSU players stepped onto the court; it gave WSU absolutely no advantage whatsoever. In my opinion, the game should ended.

I suppose, however, that campbest's call is technically correct. But that call would never be made anywhere outside the Pac 10.

 

[AdaSooner]

Talk about swallowing the whistle.....

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=300212550

Wow! Pitino had a reason to complain. The official was in error to stop his count and allow the player to start over by in-bounding the ball after a violation.

On the other hand, there's that question again. Did he use good judgment in bailing out an obviously confused player, or was he wrong by not blowing the whistle and enforcing the rule as he is instructed to do in the Official's Handbook? There are good arguments on both sides. But the kids who got excited with .03 seconds left when they assumed the game was over, would have been a lot easier for me to overlook as an official than the violation on this video.

By the way, I had not seen that before. Thanks for posting!

 

[campbest]

Wow! Pitino had a reason to complain. The official was in error to stop his count and allow the player to start over by in-bounding the ball after a violation.

On the other hand, there's that question again. Did he use good judgment in bailing out an obviously confused player, or was he wrong by not blowing the whistle and enforcing the rule as he is instructed to do in the Official's Handbook? There are good arguments on both sides. But the kids who got excited with .03 seconds left when they assumed the game was over, would have been a lot easier for me to overlook as an official than the violation on this video.

By the way, I had not seen that before. Thanks for posting!

IMO he didn't use good judgement at all, it should have been a violation. For me it's simple, when I was in college, we were taught that the clock stops on the made bucket at the end of the game. Specifically we were told to not pick up the ball immediately because the count starts. Once again, that is the player's fault for being "confused".

As for a video of the Wazzu game, I looked for one and couldn't find anything. Want to believe off my memory that the players did more than just "step on the floor". Pretty sure the official with his back to the Wazzu bench made the call, so someone had to have run by him. Sure there is only .3 seconds left, but then you open another can of worms did the official know how much time was left? Unless he was the trail, I doubt it. If I am an Oregon player, I just throw the ball into the vicinity of one of Wazzu's players celebrating and that could be determined as interference.

All I know is when we had tight games we had an assistant coach at one end and a GA/trainer (see Alex Brown) at the other to make sure no one ran on the floor. That's a part of coaching just as much as the x's and o's.