Carolina-Clemson

[bballfan]

SURFSIDERON-I am not sure what planet you are from but Hans is one heck of a player! I can not wait until he is gone... If we had him there is no way we come close to losing a game this year. Hans is the best player in the acc this year and it is not even close as much as I hate to admit that.

[CMS2478]

Actually, you're wrong.

It doesn't matter when the whistle is blown, it matters when the timeout was requested.

And the time on the clock is reviewable. Which is why they reviewed it.

Feldspar,

I am usually with you when it comes to people constantly complaining about the refs, but I would have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don't know exactly what happened, bc I wasn't there but I disagree with your statement that "it doesn't matter when the whistle is blown." It does matter a whole lot. A coach can call a timeout until he is blue in the face, but until the ref acknowledges it and blows his whistle, play does not stop and neither does the clock. Once the ball is in play Roy cannot, by rule, call a timeout. The refs had to grant his timeout before the ball was inbounded, which they clearly didn't. If you are going to allow it to happen as Clemson walks the ball up the court, what will happen next time? What if Clemson through the ball up the court for a quick dunk...and then the refs said "no, no, no, Roy called a timeout and we didn't see it quick enough and so we are going to erase the points and allow him to have his timeout." I know this is an extreme case, but the timeout allowed Carolina to set up a press and the ball was already in play and the game should have never been stopped. I am not one of these "the refs cost us the game" type people and I don't think that call impacted the outcome of the game, but it was still wrong.

[riverside6]

Hey, a lot has been made about the foul differential obviously, so we just did an article on it. It shows the teams with the top foul differential in the ACC, and you might be surprised who tops the list.

Ultimately, the Clemson - UNC game had two teams that were on completely different ends of the foul differential spectrum.

[feldspar]

Feldspar,

I am usually with you when it comes to people constantly complaining about the refs, but I would have to respectfully disagree with you here. I don't know exactly what happened, bc I wasn't there but I disagree with your statement that "it doesn't matter when the whistle is blown." It does matter a whole lot. A coach can call a timeout until he is blue in the face, but until the ref acknowledges it and blows his whistle, play does not stop and neither does the clock. Once the ball is in play Roy cannot, by rule, call a timeout. The refs had to grant his timeout before the ball was inbounded, which they clearly didn't. If you are going to allow it to happen as Clemson walks the ball up the court, what will happen next time? What if Clemson through the ball up the court for a quick dunk...and then the refs said "no, no, no, Roy called a timeout and we didn't see it quick enough and so we are going to erase the points and allow him to have his timeout." I know this is an extreme case, but the timeout allowed Carolina to set up a press and the ball was already in play and the game should have never been stopped. I am not one of these "the refs cost us the game" type people and I don't think that call impacted the outcome of the game, but it was still wrong.

You're right. Kind of.

I was wrong.

The important point I was trying to make is that in most cases, it matters less when the official blows his whistle than when the coach requests the timeout. There is always...ALWAYS at least a fraction of time that lapses between when the coach requests and when the timeout is granted.

For instance, Carolina makes a basket, and immediately after the ball goes through the hoop, Roy calls a timeout. The official sees the request, but before he can get air in his whistle, Clemson has picked up the ball and has begun its throw-in. Now, legally, once Clemson has the ball in its possession, no timeout can be REQUESTED. That's the key here. But, Roy REQUESTED the timeout BEFORE the Clemson player had the ball in his possession. Therefore, the timeout request is legal. So even though, in this hypothetical (which is not far off from what happened, IIRC) the whistle is blowing while the Clemson player has possession, the timeout is legal.

Such is the case with officiating, sadly. Many things go on that--to the naked eye--seem like a misapplication of the rule, when in fact the officials are doing an excellent job of applying the rules.

I overstated things when I said it never matters when the whistle is blown. Obviously there are cases when it does matter. My larger point is that you can have a situation, as I believe the Clemson/UNC game shows, where things really aren't exactly as they seem, but the rules are still being executed fairly and as prescribed.

Thanks for your comment.

[sandinmyshoes]

I thought Clemson played very physical defense, crashed the boards like mad men but then settled for jump shots when they were on offense. Meanwhile, UNC kept feeding the post but played almost no defense for three quarters of the game. The disparity in fouls was note worthy, but not outrageous given the way each team played.

As for the time out. DBR in the ACC column says, "Clemson shouldn’t be made to suffer for an official’s mistake." But would that not apply to UNC since they called a timeout when it was appropriate to do so? Was that not a mistake on the part of the officials for failing to grant it? So they corrected their error.

The refs don't get everything right, they're human like that. But after all the nonsense we had to listen to for the past five or six years it seems like we would be more aware of how it sounds.

I also have to shake my head at the fact that just a few days ago people on this board were griping about the physical play in the ACC. They even fingered Clemson as culprit while some even managed to set aside their rivalry bias to appreciate that UNC played a "clean" game against us (no doubt the setting aside of bias is easier done after a convincing win ). So when the refs finally call a physical team for being physical it stands to reason that there will be a foul difference.

[UncleBill]

Now, legally, once Clemson has the ball in its possession, no timeout can be REQUESTED. That's the key here. But, Roy REQUESTED the timeout BEFORE the Clemson player had the ball in his possession. Therefore, the timeout request is legal. So even though, in this hypothetical (which is not far off from what happened, IIRC) the whistle is blowing while the Clemson player has possession, the timeout is legal.

My interpretation of the rules:

"...Grants a coach's request for a timeout, such a request being granted only when the coach's team is in possession of the ball (this includes throw-ins and free throws) or when the ball is dead. The official must be certain the request was made by the head coach."

seems to have the granting as the more important driver than the requesting. The request was legal, no question about it (actually, I didn't SEE Roy request it, but it seems logical and I concede that point).

Upon TiVo review, some ref appeared to chirp his whistle as Clemson was inbounding at 1:08 (chirp as Clemson player caught ball), which MAY have been a ref beginning to grant Roys Timeout, but realizing it was too late to grant it. The gameclock stops at 1:08 for about 2.5 seconds, per my mental count, then begins running again just before the ref furthest from Roy tweets and grants the timeout, stopping the clock again at 1:07, by which point Clemson had full possession and had taken four dribbles advancing upcourt. The clockmeister MAY have understood Roy was being GRANTED a timeout, although I did not see that call being made from a ref at that time (couldn't see all refs).

[Lavabe]

Beat GT
Beat NCSU

One more win gives Clemson 20 wins.

Still keeping pace in the ACC top 4.

MAKE THE NCAA's!!

Cheers,
Lavabe