Laettner's Shot - The Ref's view

[Ggallagher]

There's a neat article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer on the ref's perspective of "The Shot". It's the first time I've seen any coverage dealing with the pressure the ref felt when Laettner made the shot. It's a good story.

Here's the link
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...50375/1062/SPT

Glen Gallagher

[Buckeye Devil]

for the link. It was an informative article. Overlooked has been the pressure on the refs to make the right call.

[Turtleboy]

Here's an interesting quote from the article.

I thought to myself, 'Don't call anything stupid,' " he said. "A guy was going to have to take (Laettner's) head off before I called a foul.

I wonder if it's that kind of thinking that helped Indiana beat Duke. Why should the defense get the breaks when the game is on the line? Why isn't a foul a foul no matter when it occurs?

[DukeFencer]

"Four out of the five Duke players had their hands in the air calling time out as soon as the ball cleared the net," he said. "If they would have slumped their shoulders after Woods hit that shot, it would have cost them time and I don't think they get to make that long inbounds pass."

When did it become policy to have the clock stop after baskets in the last minute of the game? I didn't realize how new that was.

[captmojo]

Here's an interesting quote from the article.

I thought to myself, 'Don't call anything stupid,' " he said. "A guy was going to have to take (Laettner's) head off before I called a foul.

I wonder if it's that kind of thinking that helped Indiana beat Duke. Why should the defense get the breaks when the game is on the line? Why isn't a foul a foul no matter when it occurs?

Very worthwhile questions.

[dukestheheat]

Very worthwhile questions.

At least I 'think' I do!

I have chatted with a former ACC referee who told me that 'it isn't desirable for any game to ever be decided by a couple foul shots on a last second call, unless there is a serious foul that occurs that is more than totally obvious' (or something like that).

We can all count games this year (Duke games) where it looked like one of our guys was fouled going for a shot at the end of a game, only to have the referee swallow the whistle.

I can't say I blame the referee, and it just comes down to the fact that they don't want a game to be won or lost one a call UNLESS it's just an egregious foul. And I also think that players and coaches understand this.

anyway, some stuff, and I hope Carolina loses tonight; I simply detest them.

dukestheheat

[davekay1971]

Here's an interesting quote from the article.

I thought to myself, 'Don't call anything stupid,' " he said. "A guy was going to have to take (Laettner's) head off before I called a foul.

I wonder if it's that kind of thinking that helped Indiana beat Duke. Why should the defense get the breaks when the game is on the line? Why isn't a foul a foul no matter when it occurs?

Two words: Rumeal Robinson.

I'm sure the ref was exaggerating when he said someone would have to take Laettner's head off...but I also remember the repercussions of the national championship being decided by two free throws on a relatively ticky-tack foul call. I think refs would still tend to call a hard foul in the last seconds, but they will definitely avoid anything that might be considered a "touch foul." Robinson making those free throws was a very unsatisfactory ending to the NCAA tournament.

[Tom B.]

There's a neat article in today's Cincinnati Enquirer on the ref's perspective of "The Shot". It's the first time I've seen any coverage dealing with the pressure the ref felt when Laettner made the shot. It's a good story.

Here's the link
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...50375/1062/SPT

Pretty amazing that amid all that noise, pressure and distraction, Clark was able to determine (accurately) that Laettner not only released the ball in time, but that that there were two-tenths of a second left when he released it.

IIRC, Clark was also the official who called the technical foul on Laettner after he stepped on Aminu Timberlake. So he was arguably at the epicenter of the three most remembered moments of the greatest game in NCAA Tournament history, and he got them all right.

If you click on the photo accompanying the article, you'll see that Clark is holding a framed picture of The Shot autographed by Coach K. The note from Coach K says, "To Tom: I'm glad you got this one right!"

[captmojo]

At least I 'think' I do!



anyway, some stuff, and I hope Carolina loses tonight; I simply detest them.

dukestheheat

Yeah, I think I do too, but if it happens....call it. I don't care if it may be the deciding ending or not. The losing team can always point back to 39:45 of the rest of the game to say they could have/should have.

I'm with you on the second part of the quote but Kansas is gonna have to perform much better than their last effort to have a chance.

[Turtleboy]

At least I 'think' I do! I have chatted with a former ACC referee who told me that 'it isn't desirable for any game to ever be decided by a couple foul shots on a last second call, unless there is a serious foul that occurs that is more than totally obvious' (or something like that).

That more or less re-states the question. Why is it not desirable?

In any case, the game would not have been decided by fouls shots on a last second call, if in fact they were made, the game would have been decided by the player who committed the violation.

I'm sure the ref was exaggerating when he said someone would have to take Laettner's head off...but I also remember the repercussions of the national championship being decided by two free throws on a relatively ticky-tack foul call. I think refs would still tend to call a hard foul in the last seconds, but they will definitely avoid anything that might be considered a "touch foul." Robinson making those free throws was a very unsatisfactory ending to the NCAA tournament.

Yes, he didn't literally mean the Laettner would have to be decapitated. It is clear, however, that he was applying different standards to end game situations than he did to the rest of the game. My question is why. The two free throws that a player shoots in the first minute have exactly the same value as the two he shoots in the last minute.

Why does a foul have to be "hard" to be called? Why do the rules change late in the game? What is the justification? If foul calls change, why not traveling? Out of bounds? Five seconds? A foul should be a foul no matter when it happens.

And no one is talking about "ticky-tack fouls," so I am not sure what relevance that has.

[Salag]

Here's an interesting quote from the article.

I thought to myself, 'Don't call anything stupid,' " he said. "A guy was going to have to take (Laettner's) head off before I called a foul.

I wonder if it's that kind of thinking that helped Indiana beat Duke. Why should the defense get the breaks when the game is on the line? Why isn't a foul a foul no matter when it occurs?

Us hockey fans have been saying this for decades. Referees forget the rule book in a close game during OT and crunch time.

[HK Dukie]

If you click on the photo accompanying the article, you'll see that Clark is holding a framed picture of The Shot autographed by Coach K. The note from Coach K says, "To Tom: I'm glad you got this one right!"

Oh my god, that is too funny.