Well, Karl Hess just helped screw A&M...

[ChrisP]

What the ???k was that call? Down 1 point with 3.1 seconds to go after a made FT A&M was inbounding the ball. They threw a bad pass that was IMMEDIATELY deflected out of bounds. Happened so fast, the clock operator never had time to start the clock. So the ref brain trust (including that moron, Karl Hess), gets together for an eternity around the monitor. The announcers were in agreement that at MOST the clock would be adjusted by -.2 secs. Instead Hess and the other ref took 1.1 off!!!! Unbelieveable! Now, I'm no A&M fan, but....they got screwed. Not saying they would have won, but they certainly SHOULD have had almost a second more than they did to get off a good look at the basket. Atrocious....

[dukemsu]

The NCAA has got to do something about this officiating. It's just awful. The last four minutes of the A&M game were bad, often inexplicably so. I hope we have a Final 4, at least, where the officiating is at least acceptable.

[MulletMan]

What the ???k was that call? Down 1 point with 3.1 seconds to go after a made FT A&M was inbounding the ball. They threw a bad pass that was IMMEDIATELY deflected out of bounds. Happened so fast, the clock operator never had time to start the clock. So the ref brain trust (including that moron, Karl Hess), gets together for an eternity around the monitor. The announcers were in agreement that at MOST the clock would be adjusted by -.2 secs. Instead Hess and the other ref took 1.1 off!!!! Unbelieveable! Now, I'm no A&M fan, but....they got screwed. Not saying they would have won, but they certainly SHOULD have had almost a second more than they did to get off a good look at the basket. Atrocious....

I watched the whole thing play out, and I'm pretty sure that they made the right adjustment. The thing is that the ball bounced in bounds. That was clear on the replay. If I understand the college rule correctly, the clock then stops when the ball lands out of bounds... not when it crosses the plane of the sideline. Thus, the clock should have started when the ball was touched, and should have run until it hit the ground, or, in this case, the press row table. I counted, "one-one-thousand-one" while watching the real time replay (not the slow mo that they kept showing), and I thought, even though my boy Rafftery was insisiting that it would be only .2 seconds off, that Hess and Co. got the call right.

[calltheobvious]

Raftery, Lundquist, and Davis watch the replay of the "clock play" in the A&M/Memphis game, and still they can't understand how the officials got the play right. What is wrong with these guys? The ball hit the Memphis player, then hit the court IN BOUNDS, then bounced long and out of bounds, probably six feet beyond the sideline before touching anything. The clock should not have stopped until the ball was legally out of bounds, which it was not until it hit something, approximately a second after it hit the Memphis player.

But you know who irritates me the most? The one CBS observer who seemed to see it correctly, Greg Gumbel. After listening to Raftery and Lundquist express incredulity at the call, then spending a commercial break obviously talking to Seth Davis about the play, he still allowed Davis to go on like an idiot about the play, only softly to add a "maybe it was because..." comment--which is obviously the correct explanation and the correct rule interpretation--followed by something like, "The play will obviously be discussed a lot." Well, Greg, the play wouldn't be discussed much at all if you'd step up like a man and explain the damned play, even if it means in the process calling out your colleagues as a bunch of dopes.

Rant over.

[ChrisP]

I can't stand Karl Hess (in case that's not obvious) and I may have been quick to jump on him. Mullet Man makes a good case - i.e. that the clock should not stop until after hitting the ground. Still...it seems like a stretch to me to say that it took 1.1 secs for that to happen - the ball had a lot of zip on it. I don't have the benefit of replay right now, but I'm sure we'll all see a lot of this later. Anyway...I'm willing to admit I might have been wrong about this one. In the end, I don't really care in this case because I don't really think much of A&M or Memphis as programs so it's kinda like pick your poison for me. Just hate to see any instance where a bad call (or a no call) decides a game.

[feldspar]

Frankly, neither of you know what you're talking about.

The officiating at the end of the Kansas game was excellent. A superb no-call on the drive by Rush with 25 seconds left as no advantage was created, contact was minimal, and the SIU player flopped a little bit.

Superb job as well by Karl Hess at the end of TAMU/Memphis, even though I have TAMU in my Final Four bracket.

The officials correctly went to the monitor to determine how much time should have been taken off the clock since Memphis touched the ball before it bounced ON THE COURT and traveled out of bounds. If you do the stopwatch, from the moment the ball touches the Memphis player, touches IN BOUNDS and then travels UP and waaayyy out of bounds, touching a spectator, it's very very easy to come up with 1.1 seconds.

[feldspar]

If I understand the college rule correctly, the clock then stops when the ball lands out of bounds... not when it crosses the plane of the sideline. Thus, the clock should have started when the ball was touched, and should have run until it hit the ground, or, in this case, the press row table..

You're spot on, Mullet.

[MulletMan]

I can't stand Karl Hess (in case that's not obvious) and I may have been quick to jump on him. Mullet Man makes a good case - i.e. that the clock should not stop until after hitting the ground. Still...it seems like a stretch to me to say that it took 1.1 secs for that to happen - the ball had a lot of zip on it. I don't have the benefit of replay right now, but I'm sure we'll all see a lot of this later. Anyway...I'm willing to admit I might have been wrong about this one. In the end, I don't really care in this case because I don't really think much of A&M or Memphis as programs so it's kinda like pick your poison for me. Just hate to see any instance where a bad call (or a no call) decides a game.

Concur on the opinion of Karl.

You'll see the replay on SportsCenter, I'm sure. And then on YouTube. And then tomorrow on PTI. And then on Around The Horn. And then...

I actually thought that the foul call on the rebound that sent Memphis to the line with 3.1 left was worse. I mean, from the angle they showed, it was the right call, but they'd let a lot less than that go in that game, and to make the call with the ball live... well, I prefer when the officials are not involved in the outcome of the game unless absolutely neccessary. Of course, sending Memphis to the line was never a sure thing before the last 3 games, so maybe the ref was figuring on OT if he sent them to the line down one.

Anyway, I hope the next two games are as good as the first two!

[feldspar]

well, I prefer when the officials are not involved in the outcome of the game unless absolutely neccessary.

I can't tell you how much I tire of hearing this.

Nowhere in the official's manual will you find ANYTHING talking about making or not making calls in relation to the outcome of the game.

I understand and agree that officials should establish some consitency in their calls throughout a game, but frankly, that's hard to do when you have three different officials who probably have slightly different interpretations of what is a foul and what is not. But, that's the way officiating is designed. It balances things out.

The foul with 3.1 left clearly created a disadvantage for the Memphis player. That is the ONLY thing that should come into an official's mind when making a call, not the score, not the time, not what was called earlier.

[BacchusBlue]

Yeah, that is probably the explaination for the clock (and I'm surprised the announcers didn't consider it as a possibility), but we should probably wait for the refs to give their explaination before we know for sure. The one replay they were showing made me think that the ball may well have been in bounds. But if this were the NFL, that might have been "inconclusive evidence." It was pretty close to the line, and I wouldn't say for sure it didn't hit it. And, for whatever it is worth, when they showed the play again in real time, I believe I heard the whistle blow just as the ball hit the ground the first time.
I really don't know what the rules are on this. Can the refs use replay to determine if the ball was in bounds or not? And was it in or out? Might be fun to argue, but A&M was in trouble no matter what.

[mapei]

I was mildly pulling for A&M, and I think the bigger problem was the bunch of offensive boards they gave up at the end of the game - not just the last possession, but the one before that, which allowed Memphis to run the clock down some more before shooting. And Acie Law's miss on what was otherwise a beautifully executed play. :(

As for the officiating, I'm a more casual fan than you guys. It looks to me like a foul could be called on just about every play, sometimes for either team - and sometimes they do, sometimes they don't . . . But that's why you want officials more like feldspar and Mullet, and less like me, in charge of the game, I suppose.

[feldspar]

I really don't know what the rules are on this. Can the refs use replay to determine if the ball was in bounds or not? And was it in or out?

No. NCAA Rule 2-3-c: Art. 3. The officials shall not use a courtside monitor or courtside videotape for judgment calls such as:

c. A violation

You will note that they went to the replay NOT to determine whether or not the ball went out of bounds, but to determine how much time should have expired on the clock since they had correctly determined that the ball was out of bounds off Memphis.



And, for whatever it is worth, when they showed the play again in real time, I believe I heard the whistle blow just as the ball hit the ground the first time.

It may have, but the refs had gone to the replay, because based on their judgement, the ball had been touched before going out of bounds, meaning SOME amount of time had to be taken off the clock, and none was. This was the errror that allowed them to go to replay. Once at the replay, they are then allowed to determine on their own what the time should have been had the starting and stopping of the clock been carried out correctly.

[BacchusBlue]

So once they go to the replay, they can look at all of it? Makes sense to me. That was an odd circumstance. Thanks.

[feldspar]

So once they go to the replay, they can look at all of it? Makes sense to me. That was an odd circumstance. Thanks.

Er, kind of. They can look at everything that applies to the rule that allows them to look at the replay.

Sounds screwy, I know.

So, for instance, if the refs had incorrectly called the ball off TAMU instead of Memphis in the same exact play, and went to the replay to determine the time off the clock, they could NOT change the out of bounds call, even if the replay shows that they got it wrong.

[Troublemaker]

Grrrrr... UNC's path to the championship game is going to end up being USC -- Vandy -- Tennessee .... I can already see it... Hopefully the Hoyas win against Vandy tomorrow but I feel that game is about 50/50.

I want Kansas to make it to the championship game. I really don't want to root for Florida (but I would if it means stopping a UNC championship), and I still think the Gators are about 50/50 just to make the Final Four at this point.

[BacchusBlue]

Er, kind of. They can look at everything that applies to the rule that allows them to look at the replay.

Sounds screwy, I know.

So, for instance, if the refs had incorrectly called the ball off TAMU instead of Memphis in the same exact play, and went to the replay to determine the time off the clock, they could NOT change the out of bounds call, even if the replay shows that they got it wrong.

Yeah, just like the NFL, isn't it? Despite the best intentions, replay tends to raise more questions than it answers. But I don't know of a better system.

[throatybeard]

Feld:

Please remind us which are correctable errors, and which are not.

Here's what I think I know:

1) Clock errors
2) 3pt goal vs 2 pt goal
3) Who came off the bench in a fight

are there any others?

[feldspar]

Yeah, just like the NFL, isn't it? Despite the best intentions, replay tends to raise more questions than it answers. But I don't know of a better system.

Yeah, that's why the NCAA tries to limit the types of plays that are reviewable to things that can be judged fairly clearly, like timing issues, whether a shot was a 3 or a 2, etc. and not whether or not something was a foul, goaltending, things that are more judgement calls.

[MulletMan]

I can't tell you how much I tire of hearing this.

Nowhere in the official's manual will you find ANYTHING talking about making or not making calls in relation to the outcome of the game.

I understand and agree that officials should establish some consitency in their calls throughout a game, but frankly, that's hard to do when you have three different officials who probably have slightly different interpretations of what is a foul and what is not. But, that's the way officiating is designed. It balances things out.

The foul with 3.1 left clearly created a disadvantage for the Memphis player. That is the ONLY thing that should come into an official's mind when making a call, not the score, not the time, not what was called earlier.


You're absolutely correct. There was no choice for that official. There was a foul committed. My preference has nothing to do with wether he was right or wrong... I'd just prefer that end of game scenario to play out without a foul. It was the right call. However I did think it was inconsistent with how the rest of the game was called.

Along the lines of what you're saying about consistency... do you remember when there used to be "conference officials"? I think there was a considerabley higher level of consistency when officials worked together on crews... kind of the way that college football refs do. In fact, when we were driving up to the ACC tourney in D.C. a couple years ago, I actually go onto a radio call in show with... wait for it... Karl Hess, and was able to ask him about this issue. I was suprised to learn that the conferences no longer have a group of "conference officials", but that these guys actually act as independent contractors now officiating as many games as they feel like in a given week. Hess made the point that it was better for the refs to work in crews because you could get consistency and get used to calling the game with other guys. However, the conferences pay less with this current set up, and guys like Hess, who prefer to stay in very small geographical area during the regular season can do so. For example, I think he said that he only wants to work withing a 2 hour drive of his home during the week. With the new ACC this certainley wouldn't be possible if he couldn't choose his own assignments.

Anyway, interesting. Feldspar... your thoughts?

[feldspar]

You're absolutely correct. There was no choice for that official. There was a foul committed. My preference has nothing to do with wether he was right or wrong... I'd just prefer that end of game scenario to play out without a foul. It was the right call. However I did think it was inconsistent with how the rest of the game was called.

I see what you're saying now.


Along the lines of what you're saying about consistency... do you remember when there used to be "conference officials"? I think there was a considerabley higher level of consistency when officials worked together on crews... kind of the way that college football refs do. In fact, when we were driving up to the ACC tourney in D.C. a couple years ago, I actually go onto a radio call in show with... wait for it... Karl Hess, and was able to ask him about this issue. I was suprised to learn that the conferences no longer have a group of "conference officials", but that these guys actually act as independent contractors now officiating as many games as they feel like in a given week. Hess made the point that it was better for the refs to work in crews because you could get consistency and get used to calling the game with other guys. However, the conferences pay less with this current set up, and guys like Hess, who prefer to stay in very small geographical area during the regular season can do so. For example, I think he said that he only wants to work withing a 2 hour drive of his home during the week. With the new ACC this certainley wouldn't be possible if he couldn't choose his own assignments.

Anyway, interesting. Feldspar... your thoughts?

In a nutshell, I think conference officials is great for conference regular season and tournament play, but awful for the NCAA tournament. You get guys staying within conference and developing this level of "consistency," and then they have to break out into seperate groups for the NCAA touranment, and you end up mixing and matching different styles and consistencies.

And, with respect to Bobby Knight's comments a couple of weeks ago (since the two subjects are related), RMK should perhaps consider that the reason officials have to officiate so many games in a given week is that it's hard to find qualified officials who are willing to put up with the kind of crap that coaches like RMK shove at them every game.

[feldspar]

calltheobvious,

FWIW, Seth just did a complete mea culpa on the TAMU/Memphis clock call.

Good for him.

[throatybeard]

But you know who irritates me the most? The one CBS observer who seemed to see it correctly, Greg Gumbel. After listening to Raftery and Lundquist express incredulity at the call, then spending a commercial break obviously talking to Seth Davis about the play, he still allowed Davis to go on like an idiot about the play, only softly to add a "maybe it was because..." comment--which is obviously the correct explanation and the correct rule interpretation--followed by something like, "The play will obviously be discussed a lot." Well, Greg, the play wouldn't be discussed much at all if you'd step up like a man and explain the damned play, even if it means in the process calling out your colleagues as a bunch of dopes.

In the studio just now, Seth Davis just issued a profuse mea culpa and totally recanted his position on that call. Also told Gumbel he was right.

[kexman]

I wasn't sure if they were incompetant or were just trying to stir up the controversy. I picked it up on the first replay without tivo. I'm a scientist not a paid analyst....I expect more. I can understand the fact that they thought it was 0.2 upfront, but not to be able to figure out where the 1.1 seconds came after the refs made the call suggests these guys are morons.

Gumbls should have stepped up and at least made a strong comment suggesting that this was the call...pathetic!!!

I wish they would take the tourney away from CBS and give it to NBC or ABC. One...there sports are better....plus we could watch on multiple networks on their family of channels. It seems ludicrous that the NCAA gives the games to the one channel that does not have multiple channels to broadcast all of the games.

[fan345678]

I gotta say, ever since the Indiana guy bear hugged Carlos Boozer back in '02, I get ticked off any time a foul is called in that kind of situation. Not Matt Christensen ticked off, but ticked off nonetheless.

Also, with the inability or refusal of the announcers to see that the correct call was made on the out-of-bounds review, I am even more convinced that Duke hatred is tied in with a larger epidemic of belief that officials might have a reason for anything that at first glance seems awry with an individual observer's own views. I hate it when officials anticipate calls (like the Ewing "foul" vs. St. Johns a few years back), but I hate it more when announcers anticipate officiating and build their broadcast around it. I can accept ignorance among fans, to an extent.

I'm trying to find some way to blame Hume and Descartes.

[dukeENG2003]

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this situation very similar to the Clemson game, but officiated differently (I'm not familiar enough with the rule book to say which way is correct, I just know that it was done differently)

In the Clemson game, the claim was that the officials couldn't correct the fact that the clock was started late, but they could correct that it was stopped late (which is why 4.3 seconds appeared on the clock, as opposed to somewhere between 2 and 3 seconds which would have been more reasonable). In this game, the clock was definitely started late (well, not at all). Seems like if they were able to take time off of the clock despite it never starting in this game, they would have been able to correctly officiate the Clemson game.

I happen to think that they made the right call in the A&M game (dunno about the Clemson game, but as a Duke fan, I obviously liked the way it was officiated), but I'm curious what the rulebook says with regards to correcting timing errors of when the clock should START.

[calltheobvious]

In the studio just now, Seth Davis just issued a profuse mea culpa and totally recanted his position on that call. Also told Gumbel he was right.

Good for Seth. It would also be nice if Verne and Raf would do the same at the beginning of the Memphis-Tennessee game on Saturday.

[calltheobvious]

I wasn't sure if they were incompetant or were just trying to stir up the controversy. I picked it up on the first replay without tivo. I'm a scientist not a paid analyst....I expect more. I can understand the fact that they thought it was 0.2 upfront, but not to be able to figure out where the 1.1 seconds came after the refs made the call suggests these guys are morons.

Gumbls should have stepped up and at least made a strong comment suggesting that this was the call...pathetic!!!

I wish they would take the tourney away from CBS and give it to NBC or ABC. One...there sports are better....plus we could watch on multiple networks on their family of channels. It seems ludicrous that the NCAA gives the games to the one channel that does not have multiple channels to broadcast all of the games.

Kex,

I think the point you bring up in your last graf here deserves its own thread; I think it would make for a very interesting Malcolm Gladwell-type New Yorker piece or something.

I have no data to support any sort of a coherent position, but the issue you bring up raises many interesting questions:

Viacom is a huge MNC, and at first glance, it makes little sense to me how they haven't expanded their television holdings. Is the NCAA contract so lucrative that it is actually cost-effective for them not to expand, so that they can continue to out-bid competitors for the NCAAMBT? Presumably, one of the reasons they are able to do so is the revenue they generate from DirecTV packages that they can sell as a result of having only one channel on which to broadcast.

I'm hazy on the questions relating to ad revenues, though. Is ad space in a CBS-only world greater in the aggregate than if NBC, for example, had the tournament and were selling adds on NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and Bravo at the same time?

Does the tournament possibly lend itself to a collaborative effort and piece-meal bidding process whereby networks bid on particular weekends of the tournament? I think that this would be a very interesting way for the NCAA to go if they could work a short-term deal, allowing everyone to easily compare the coverage of various networks.

I have answers to none of this, but it's sure fun to think about.

[Classof06]

If Acie makes his wide-open layup, none of this is an issue...

[calltheobvious]

If Acie makes his wide-open layup, none of this is an issue...

I think this is a terribly unfair characterization of that play, given the two defenders involved and how hard he'd worked over the course of the game.

[Fish80]

No call, but he was fouled, look at the play again, defender puts his arm around Acie's waist. Didn't yank him down, but definitely interfered with his shot.

[throatybeard]

If Acie makes his wide-open layup, none of this is an issue...

I wasn't aware a 1-point lead with 45 seconds left was an insurmountable deficit. This isn't soccer.

[Tateball23]

I agree I don't think a full 1.1 seconds should have been taken off the clock. But it wouldn't have mattered. They still would have lost. And it is not all Karl Hess's fault. There were several people involved.

[phaedrus]

it would have been 3 points if he'd made the layup. which is slightly less surmountable.

[Redickulous]

Karl Hess Blows. I'm sure he's real nice and all, but his officiating is and has always been completely atrocious and unfortunately he's an ACC ref. Yay.

[calltheobvious]

Karl Hess Blows. I'm sure he's real nice and all, but his officiating is and has always been completely atrocious and unfortunately he's an ACC ref. Yay.


I'm interested to learn of the credentials that qualify you to judge men's college basketball officials. I presume, since you use a word as strong as "atrocious," that you have some experience in this area beyond what one can get in front of a television.

[Fish80]

Wouldn't it be smarter to say kind things about the officials? We know Karl Hess is an ACC official and he does a lot of our games.

[Redickulous]

Wouldn't it be smarter to say kind things about the officials? We know Karl Hess is an ACC official and he does a lot of our games.


Yes, it would maybe be wise, if Karl Hess were sitting around trolling post 25 of the DBR, but c'mon, perhaps we're overstating the importance of our little posts on the internet.

I have no statistical evidence. I am not a referee. Sorry. I just have always thought Karl's refereeing to be subpar---and I have no opinion whatsoever about his recent controversial call.

Again, I'm sure he is a super-nice man.

If you think it will help, I'll write again and say I hate Duke or something.