The 1972 Olympians should stop whining

[Olympic Fan]

On the front page today, the DBR posts

For the first time since 1972, Doug Collins, Tom Burleson, Tom McMillen and the rest of the 1972 Olympic team which was robbed of the gold medal have had a reunion.

Gathering in Georgetown, Kentucky, they still stick to their guns, refusing the silver medals, and it’s hard to blame them. We’ve never yet heard an account of what happened at the end of that game which remotely made sense or seemed fair.

Well, I realize that this is going to make me very unpopular on this board, but I do think that the ending of gold medal game "made sense" and was "fair".

For years I too thought we were screwed. It was only when I actually studied what happened (inspired by an exhibit at the North Carolina museum of history that I think was assembled by our own Jim Sumner) that I understood that the Russians deserved the gold medal. We were the victims of a badly mismanaged end-game … but so were the Russians (or to be more accurate, the Soviets, since most of their team were Lithuanians).

Mistakes were made. But the Russians DID NOT get three chances to win the game as was usuallyu asserted. And several of the mistakes were honest attempts to reach a fair outcome.

Let me walk you through what happened.

Up until the point that Doug Collins goes to the free throw line with three seconds left, there is little controversy. Yeah, it was a badly officiated game, but that’s just normal for the Olympics in that era. The point is that we’re down 49-48 in the closing seconds when Kevin Joyce steals the ball and gets it ahead to Collins, who is clobbered with three seconds left. Under our rules, it would have been a flagrant foul, but there was no such thing in International basketball in 1972, so the refs made the proper call – two free throws for Collins. He stepped to the line and made the first to tie the game.

At this point, no problem. But here’s where it gets screwy. A lot of the confusion stems from communication problems (the coaches, the officials and the scorekeeper all spoke different languages) and American misunderstanding of International (FIBA) rules.

After Collins’ first free throw, the Russian coach tried to call timeout. You have to understand, under the rules at the time, a timeout could only be called by the coach (NOT a player on the floor) and only during a dead ball. In fact, dead ball was defined differently – once the ball was handed to Collins for his free throw, that ended the last chance to get a timeout – even if he makes it, that would not have been considered a dead ball.

What the film shows is the Russian coach standing by the scorekeeper as he should have been and as soon as Collins’ first free throw goes through, he calls for timeout, even making the T signal with his hands that we’re all familiar with. He turns away, expecting to hear the buzzer … when nothing happens, he turns back and begins frantically repeating his signal.

The scorekeeper – who started the whole train of tragic events – finally buzzes the buzzer – but the ball is already in Collins hands. The scorekeeper keeps buzzing as the shot goes up and in. The Russian players, knowing the rules and thinking there is no deadball, throw the ball in, rush it up the court and end up throwing a shot up from midcourt.

This is the so-called FIRST Russian chance.

But it’s not a chance – it wouldn’t have counted if the shot had gone in. In the first place, the clock doesn’t start until the ball is almost at halfcourt. In the second, the officials, reacting to the buzzer, are blowing their whistles.

After several minutes of confusing non-communication, order is restored and the officials decree that the Russians should get their timeout and the three seconds should be put back on the clock. I’m not sure if that was the technically correct ruling – the Russians DID deserve a timeout, but they should have gotten it BEFORE Collins attempted the go-ahead free throw.

I think what they decided was a compromise … an attempt at fairness. They gave Collins his free throw and gave the Russians their timeout. Technically, they could have ruled that since the Russian coach asked for the timeout and should have been given it before the second free throw that Collins would have to shoot again.

But the confusion and the mistakes weren’t over.

Before they could replay the final three seconds, the old-style digital clock had to be reset. Those clocks could click off the minutes one-by-one, but not the seconds. It had to be reset at 1:00 and have 57 seconds run off to stop at 0:03.

Both teams were on the floor ready to go while those 57 seconds clicked down. Here’s where the next stupid mistake occurred … with 40-sose seconds ticking off, the referee with the ball handed it to the Soviet inbounder and motioned for him to begin.

The Soviet guard was stunned. So was everybody else watching. Again, the buzzer sounded as the ball was inbounded and the panicked scorekeeper simply turned off the clock.

That was the so-called SECOND CHANCE. Again, it wasn’t a chance – and if they had scored, it wouldn’t have counted.

More confusion ensured and into the melee stepped the British head of FIBA. His intervention was probably illegal, but again, like everybody else, he was trying to create a fair outcome. All he did was order what the officials had ordered after the first screwup – that the clock be reset to three seconds.

This was the so-called THIRD chance and it was a chance – the only chance the Russians were given after Collins’ free throw.

There was one final bit of confusion. Tom McMillen, guarding in the inbounds pass, was hopping on the out-of-bounds line as the official prepared to hand the ball to the inbounds passer. He ordered McMillen back off the line. That is proper and correct -- McMillen was violating the rules as he broke the plane of the end line. But with the language barrier and in the confusion, McMillen misunderstood his order and backed far away from the inbounds passer. He ended up about the foul line – not close enough to hinder the passer, but not back enough to play any effective defense.

In the end, the Russians hit a hail-mary pass to Belov as Joyce and Jim Forbes, the two deep defenders for the US, knocked each other off and gave him an easy layup.

Ever since, we’ve claimed we were robbed. Well, we weren’t. We were the victims of a very mismanaged end-game … we just didn’t handle it as well as the Russians.

Instead of blaming the officials for our loss, we should ask what the hell Hank Iba was thinking at the end? The tallest American on the floor in those fatal three seconds was McMillen, who was defending (or in point of fact, not defending) the inbounds pass. Underneath the basket, he has 6-3 Joyce and 6-5 Forbes.

On the bench, he has 7-4 Tom Burleson, a superb shotblocker. And 6-9 Bobby Jones, the greatest defensive forward of his generation. Why weren’t they out there to defend the US basket?

Americans have whined a lot about that game – even going so far as to invent things (I’ve heard Joyce complain that Belov pushed off to catch the pass … watch the film, he does nothing of the sort). But I think a fair examination of the situation HAS to lead to the conclusion that justice was done. The Russians deserved the gold medal.

It all reminds me of Duke's win at Virginia in 1997, when a similar screwup by te scorekeeper (and the officials) led to a bizarre end-game that probably screwed the Cavs and gave Duke the victory. In that situation, mistakes were made and Duke handled it with poise and the Cavs didn't.

That's what happened in Munich. The end game was a mess, but nobody was trying to screw us -- they were trying to achieve fairness. In the end, the Russians handled with with poise and we didn't.

It's about time we faced the truth and stopped whining about it.

[Wander]

Intervention by the FIBA head was definitely illegal - not probably - and he's since admitted it himself. It might be a little naive to think he was "just trying to create a fair outcome" - the guy was known to not like American dominance in basketball and to cheer for the Soviet team in previous Olympics.

That said, thanks for the extended description and I agree that the game was more of a mess and less of a conspiracy than some make it out to be. It's just that, IMO, this doesn't imply that the Russians handled it with more poise or played better at the end. I think it more implies something analogous to, let's flip a coin to decide the outcome of the game. I don't have a problem with the team not accepting the silver medals.

By the way, Brian Zoubek and the Butler Bulldogs disagree with your opinion on which player to use to guard inbounders (I recognize that situation was slightly different, but I think this is a strategy that is generally considered OK).

[Sandman]

Thanks, Olympic Fan. I have never really examined the facts of that game. I just accepted at face value the media reports that "we wus robbed!" Based on your analysis, I now really question that. Can't say my views are completely reversed, but enough so that I now will reserve judgement until I do more research. This is yet another example of why we must NEVER trust "the media" without doing our own independent research. However, in most of our busy lives we just don't have the time, so, "whatever, dude"!

[hq2]

Thanks, Olympic Fan. I have never really examined the facts of that game. I just accepted at face value the media reports that "we wus robbed!" Based on your analysis, I now really question that. Can't say my views are completely reversed, but enough so that I now will reserve judgement until I do more research. This is yet another example of why we must NEVER trust "the media" without doing our own independent research. However, in most of our busy lives we just don't have the time, so, "whatever, dude"!

Yes, that was very helpful. At the time it happened, I don't think any of us really understood what was going on at all; it was all very confusing.
Apparently, the referees didn't either. I think the question is, if the Russians had scored on the two previous attempts, which supposedly would
not have counted, would they have let it stand or made them re-run it; i.e., was it really the only legitimate scoring chance? And yes, the question of why our tallest defenders were not under the basket has bothered me too, but remember, with three seconds left, there was also time for a throw and catch for a jump shot (haven't we seen that somewhere before, say in 1992?), so if they had thrown it in and hit an unguarded jumper, we would have faulted Iba for putting in the too-slow Burleson. McMillen misunderstanding the refs is one of those sad occurencees that occur in international play, but in the end, the fault was America's for not knowing the rules correctly. Very helpful discussion.

[Wander]

but in the end, the fault was America's for not knowing the rules correctly.

What? Which rules did the American team not understand correctly?

McMillen understood the rule - he knew he was allowed to guard the inbounder. He was just afraid he'd get penalized anyway (with opposing free throws that would have lost us the game) if he didn't listen to the ref, who he thought was telling him to move out of the area completely. Whether he was actually told to move out of the area completely or whether it was an innocent misunderstanding is up for debate, but it wasn't a case of not knowing a rule on the player's part.

[sagegrouse]

It's about time we faced the truth and stopped whining about it.

Couldn't give you a spork, so I'll thank you for a bracing cold shower. -- sagegrouse

[BD80]

I think you could apply electrodes to Doug Collins' most sensitive areas and torture him for hours and he would never admit that there could be an impartial way to view the outcome as "just."

Frankly, the game should not have been that close. How many great coaches have refused to blame refs for questionable calls by saying "we shouldn't have been in that situation where a call could decide the game?"

[SCMatt33]

I had a few questions about this. First, do you have a source for the footage of the Russian coach trying to call timeout. I couldn't find that part in the video I found. Second, do you have a copy of the international rules from 1972. That's a really obscure document and something I'd like to peruse for purposes other than this controversy.

Anyway, I'm a little confused about the timeout that the Russians called. Was there an official who clearly tried to grant the timeout before Collins got the ball? Again, I didn't see it, and am not sure of the rule, but in American rules, a timeout does not occur until an official grants the timeout. Also, the scorekeeper is not an official under American rules. From what I did see, two of the officials were in the area of the free throw line and the base line and neither of those seemed to grant a timeout. I did not see the third official, but based on the description, it would seem a little odd that a coach would signal for a timeout and then walk away before it was granted. Certainly, 1972 rules could be different, but I would think that once the timeout is not granted and Collins gets the ball, that should end all possibility of a timeout, even if was the officials ineptitude that caused the timeout to not be granted properly. At that point in the game, two wrongs do not make a right. Based on the international rules at the time, the Russians should never have gotten an opportunity to start the play with their big men at the other end of the floor. They play they should have gotten (even if the timeout had been granted correctly) was with their big men preparing for a rebound under their own basket, then having to run to the other end of the floor.

Once the timeout is missed, that game was doomed to end controversially, no matter who won. I certainly don't blame any kind of favoritism for the way it was called, but the officials clearly acted in a way that directly contributed to the outcome of the game*.

*assuming there isn't a FIBA rule from 1972 stated that the timeout occurs at the point it was called and not the time it was granted or the video shows an official granting the timeout before Collins gets the ball.

[jimsumner]

Over the years, I've talked to three players from that team, Jones, Burleson and McMillen.

They agree on two things.

1.They got hosed.

2.It should never have come to that. Head coach Hank Iba was a certified legend but he coached that team like it was 1946. Had he let them run and press, the US would have blown out the Soviets.

But he didn't and they didn't.

[OldPhiKap]

Over the years, I've talked to three players from that team, Jones, Burleson and McMillen.

They agree on two things.

1.They got hosed.

2.It should never have come to that. Head coach Hank Iba was a certified legend but he coached that team like it was 1946. Had he let them run and press, the US would have blown out the Soviets.

But he didn't and they didn't.

I think this is the bottom line, and it's like the many close "upsets" that we have been on the winning and losing side over so may years. If you put yourself in a position to let the refs/calls make the difference, well . . . that is kinda on you.

[Reilly]

Thanks, Olympic Fan.

1. I had always heard we'd been hosed yet never focused on it. Last year, somewhere on the internet, I found a pretty detailed description and some footage that had been put together -- and it struck me that we had not been hosed, just like you argue, Oly. At the time, I emailed the article (forget where it was from) to my b'ball-loving Duke friends, basically saying "this is interesting and it's not nearly as bad as I've heard over the years." They all agreed.

2. A very good friend of mine ended up living in Newland, NC about 20 years ago and played on the same rec league team as Tom Burleson. He said Burleson said he'd actually like to have the silver medal -- not for himself, but for his kids. It is an Olympic Silver Medal, after all. Instead, the players are left with some sort of sense of righteous victimhood.

[X-Man]

I had a few questions about this. First, do you have a source for the footage of the Russian coach trying to call timeout. I couldn't find that part in the video I found. Second, do you have a copy of the international rules from 1972. That's a really obscure document and something I'd like to peruse for purposes other than this controversy.

Anyway, I'm a little confused about the timeout that the Russians called. Was there an official who clearly tried to grant the timeout before Collins got the ball? Again, I didn't see it, and am not sure of the rule, but in American rules, a timeout does not occur until an official grants the timeout. Also, the scorekeeper is not an official under American rules. From what I did see, two of the officials were in the area of the free throw line and the base line and neither of those seemed to grant a timeout. I did not see the third official, but based on the description, it would seem a little odd that a coach would signal for a timeout and then walk away before it was granted. Certainly, 1972 rules could be different, but I would think that once the timeout is not granted and Collins gets the ball, that should end all possibility of a timeout, even if was the officials ineptitude that caused the timeout to not be granted properly. At that point in the game, two wrongs do not make a right. Based on the international rules at the time, the Russians should never have gotten an opportunity to start the play with their big men at the other end of the floor. They play they should have gotten (even if the timeout had been granted correctly) was with their big men preparing for a rebound under their own basket, then having to run to the other end of the floor.

Once the timeout is missed, that game was doomed to end controversially, no matter who won. I certainly don't blame any kind of favoritism for the way it was called, but the officials clearly acted in a way that directly contributed to the outcome of the game*.

*assuming there isn't a FIBA rule from 1972 stated that the timeout occurs at the point it was called and not the time it was granted or the video shows an official granting the timeout before Collins gets the ball.



Under FIBA rules, the coach indicates the Timeout to the scorer's table (not the on-court officials). Timeouts are only granted during dead balls but they can be 'called' at any time (i.e. the call for a timeout can be made to the scorer's table during the course of play and then is granted at the first dead ball). I'm pretty sure Timeouts cannot be granted during (i.e. between) free throws by the opposing team. The fact the Russian coach signaled the timeout to the scorer's table between Collin's free throws and then walked away is perfectly normally. He made his request and it was granted once Collin's made the second free throw. The confusion arises because often times because both the players and officials on the court may not be away a timeout has been called (remember it is made to the scorer's table). Personnel on the floor are dependent on the horn to sound indicating a stoppage in play. The type of confusion that took place during the 'First Russian chance' happens a lot in close end game situations. Here in Canada, Universities began using FIBA rules a number of years ago and the nuances between FIBA and American rules take some getting used to.

[Reilly]

NBC story from '92 olympics on the 20th anniversary of the 1972 basketball controversy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwZuPi4cbyg

[roywhite]

wow....still shaking my head.

The guys who trained and competed for their country as amateurs and 40 years later they're being called out for being whiners based on a different interpretation of a controversial ending??

[WiJoe]

It's about time we faced the truth and stopped whining about it.

Are you a communist? Red menace? That goes for the rest of you yahoos! who think it's time to move on.

Over? Nothing is over until WE decide it is.

Screwed. Period!

[allenmurray]

wow....still shaking my head.

The guys who trained and competed for their country as amateurs and 40 years later they're being called out for being whiners based on a different interpretation of a controversial ending??

I have to agree with you here Roy. While I agree with olympicfan's explanation of the game, calling that group of olympians "whiners" struck me as over the top and really diminished the repect I have for his usual excellent posts.

[hq2]

I think if the game had been played under a different context that the ending wouldn't have been quite as controversial. It was the facts that

1. It was the U.S. vs. the Soviet Union during the Cold War era.


2. The fact that the U.S. had never lost in international competition, and the rest of the world was rooting for America to lose.


So the feeling that the players got, right or wrong, was that everyone else was rooting for America to lose, and they wanted to
give the Soviets another shot just so they would. Whether or not that's true is still debatable. I'm not sure if the Soviets had
scored the first time they had the ball whether an American protest would have been upheld. It's hard to say.

In the end, given the magnitude of the officiating and scoring errors that occurred, a better way to view it is that the game results ought to be
thrown out, and neither side should get the gold medals; these errors had too great an effect on the final results of the game for it
to be considered a valid contest. I think if both sides had been given the chance to replay the game again the next day, both would
have done it, because both sides thought they had/would won/win. That would have been the best outcome.

[oldnavy]

I think if the game had been played under a different context that the ending wouldn't have been quite as controversial. It was the facts that

1. It was the U.S. vs. the Soviet Union during the Cold War era.


2. The fact that the U.S. had never lost in international competition, and the rest of the world was rooting for America to lose.


So the feeling that the players got, right or wrong, was that everyone else was rooting for America to lose, and they wanted to
give the Soviets another shot just so they would. Whether or not that's true is still debatable. I'm not sure if the Soviets had
scored the first time they had the ball whether an American protest would have been upheld. It's hard to say.

In the end, given the magnitude of the officiating and scoring errors that occurred, a better way to view it is that the game results ought to be
thrown out, and neither side should get the gold medals; these errors had too great an effect on the final results of the game for it
to be considered a valid contest. I think if both sides had been given the chance to replay the game again the next day, both would
have done it, because both sides thought they had/would won/win. That would have been the best outcome.

OlympicFan does make some good points. However, there are numerous examples in the olympics where judging clearly was corrupt, example Roy Jones in 1988 and where even Pak si-Hun apologized and the refs were suspended however the decision was allowed to stand. The long standing "Russian Judge" score is a running joke partly because it is based in truth. So it is understandable why even if a closer look may lead some to believe that it wasn't a fix to disagree and feel otherwise. I don't feel that the team is whinning. They truely feel they got the shaft and are standing by their beliefs. I think Duke got robbed in 2004, but I don't think I am guilty of "whinnig about it" when asked. Perhaps it is time to move on, but calling them whinners may be a bit harsh.

[Highlander]

Here are my issues with OlympicFan's analysis:

1) As stated earlier, a timeout is granted by the official, and a coach has to be recognized. I've never heard of timeouts being granted BETWEEN free throws before, but I'll admit I don't know FIBA 1972 rules on this point. Regardless, if the official did not grant a timeout, then there wasn't a timeout. Trying to retroactively grant one was the official's first mistake. The first shot should probably have counted, but if they were granted a timeout after the second free throw (and such a timeout was legal), then I can live with a reset there since the refs tried to stop the play once it started.

2) Secondly, just because the clock wasn't ready doesn't mean the second play didn't happen and no time elapsed. The referee handed the player the ball and motioned for him to inbound. Once he legally inbounded, the ball was in play and time elapsed. The correct decision would have been to determine how many seconds went off the clock during their second attempt, then grant possession to the team who had the ball at that time. And that is assuming there was a whistle stopping play during the second attempt. Granted there was no video review in 1972, but there is no "do over" rule in basketball just because the clock isn't set properly, at least not that I am aware of.

3) The Americans certainly did themselves no favors on the third shot, playing shoddy defense with the wrong personnel. However, I think they have a legitimate gripe that the third shot should never have happened.

[ForkFondler]

Are you a communist? Red menace? That goes for the rest of you yahoos! who think it's time to move on.

Over? Nothing is over until WE decide it is.

Screwed. Period!

Just So. I Can Whine If I Want To.

[throatybeard]

It's about time we faced the truth and stopped whining about it.

This. Whatever the circumstances--about which you've educated us--I can see whining about it a day later, three, OK.

Whining about a sports result and blaming it on the officials four decades later is beyond pathetic. Heck, subtract the officials, the Cold War, the fact that we're blaming (mostly) ethnic Lithuanians who were overrun by the Soviets and then we lump them in with "the Russians."

Whining about a sports result four decades later is just sad. I'm sure Duke got screwed at some point in the 1940s, or when I was in college in the 1990s. I'm over it. Let's be adults!

Am I thrilled Louisville beat us in 1986? No. But I have a mortgage to pay, so, whatever. It's just sports.

[moonpie23]

do you think coach K sees the olympics and the US's role in those games as "just sports"? do you think that he got kobe, lebron, wade, bosch, kidd, durant and love to buy into something that was "just sports"?


highly doubtful.


That '72 team was the face of OUR COUNTRY during those games.. K gets it.....if y'all think these guys are "whining" about it, it's kind of obvious that you don't....

[throatybeard]

do you think coach K sees the olympics and the US's role in those games as "just sports"? do you think that he got kobe, lebron, wade, bosch, kidd, durant and love to buy into something that was "just sports"?


highly doubtful.


That '72 team was the face of OUR COUNTRY during those games.. K gets it.....if y'all think these guys are "whining" about it, it's kind of obvious that you don't....

I'm pretty sure that if a close result (in a game that shouldn't have been close) went against us in 2008 or 2012, Mike Krzyzewski would be the last guy whining, and the first guy saying "we should not have even put ourselves in that position."

Much less the commentariat or a player whining about it four decades later, which is really a whole different issue. Had we lost to Spain in 2008 due to some officiating mess, and Kobe or a journalist is still whining about it in 2048...Kobe's not my favorite person in 2048.

[OldPhiKap]

Bill Walton lost one game in his entire college career. When asked if he ever thought about that game, he replied "I live with that game every day of my life."

If the players want to hold a grudge about that game, they earned the right to do so.

Me, I have moved on. (although still not over the Louisville game)

[moonpie23]

I'm pretty sure that if a close result (in a game that shouldn't have been close) went against us in 2008 or 2012, Mike Krzyzewski would be the last guy whining, and the first guy saying "we should not have even put ourselves in that position."

Much less the commentariat or a player whining about it four decades later, which is really a whole different issue. Had we lost to Spain in 2008 due to some officiating mess, and Kobe or a journalist is still whining about it in 2048...Kobe's not my favorite person in 2048.

i wasn't implying that coach k would be whining about it......my point was, that, playing for your country in the olympics was not "just sport".

do you think coach K is telling doug collins and the rest of the 72 team to "quit whining" ?

[devilsadvocate85]

On the front page today, the DBR posts

For the first time since 1972, Doug Collins, Tom Burleson, Tom McMillen and the rest of the 1972 Olympic team which was robbed of the gold medal have had a reunion.

Gathering in Georgetown, Kentucky, they still stick to their guns, refusing the silver medals, and it’s hard to blame them. We’ve never yet heard an account of what happened at the end of that game which remotely made sense or seemed fair.

Well, I realize that this is going to make me very unpopular on this board, but I do think that the ending of gold medal game "made sense" and was "fair".

For years I too thought we were screwed. It was only when I actually studied what happened (inspired by an exhibit at the North Carolina museum of history that I think was assembled by our own Jim Sumner) that I understood that the Russians deserved the gold medal. We were the victims of a badly mismanaged end-game … but so were the Russians (or to be more accurate, the Soviets, since most of their team were Lithuanians).

Mistakes were made. But the Russians DID NOT get three chances to win the game as was usuallyu asserted. And several of the mistakes were honest attempts to reach a fair outcome.

Let me walk you through what happened.

Up until the point that Doug Collins goes to the free throw line with three seconds left, there is little controversy. Yeah, it was a badly officiated game, but that’s just normal for the Olympics in that era. The point is that we’re down 49-48 in the closing seconds when Kevin Joyce steals the ball and gets it ahead to Collins, who is clobbered with three seconds left. Under our rules, it would have been a flagrant foul, but there was no such thing in International basketball in 1972, so the refs made the proper call – two free throws for Collins. He stepped to the line and made the first to tie the game.

At this point, no problem. But here’s where it gets screwy. A lot of the confusion stems from communication problems (the coaches, the officials and the scorekeeper all spoke different languages) and American misunderstanding of International (FIBA) rules.

After Collins’ first free throw, the Russian coach tried to call timeout. You have to understand, under the rules at the time, a timeout could only be called by the coach (NOT a player on the floor) and only during a dead ball. In fact, dead ball was defined differently – once the ball was handed to Collins for his free throw, that ended the last chance to get a timeout – even if he makes it, that would not have been considered a dead ball.

What the film shows is the Russian coach standing by the scorekeeper as he should have been and as soon as Collins’ first free throw goes through, he calls for timeout, even making the T signal with his hands that we’re all familiar with. He turns away, expecting to hear the buzzer … when nothing happens, he turns back and begins frantically repeating his signal.

The scorekeeper – who started the whole train of tragic events – finally buzzes the buzzer – but the ball is already in Collins hands. The scorekeeper keeps buzzing as the shot goes up and in. The Russian players, knowing the rules and thinking there is no deadball, throw the ball in, rush it up the court and end up throwing a shot up from midcourt.

This is the so-called FIRST Russian chance.

But it’s not a chance – it wouldn’t have counted if the shot had gone in. In the first place, the clock doesn’t start until the ball is almost at halfcourt. In the second, the officials, reacting to the buzzer, are blowing their whistles.

After several minutes of confusing non-communication, order is restored and the officials decree that the Russians should get their timeout and the three seconds should be put back on the clock. I’m not sure if that was the technically correct ruling – the Russians DID deserve a timeout, but they should have gotten it BEFORE Collins attempted the go-ahead free throw.

I think what they decided was a compromise … an attempt at fairness. They gave Collins his free throw and gave the Russians their timeout. Technically, they could have ruled that since the Russian coach asked for the timeout and should have been given it before the second free throw that Collins would have to shoot again.

But the confusion and the mistakes weren’t over.

Before they could replay the final three seconds, the old-style digital clock had to be reset. Those clocks could click off the minutes one-by-one, but not the seconds. It had to be reset at 1:00 and have 57 seconds run off to stop at 0:03.

Both teams were on the floor ready to go while those 57 seconds clicked down. Here’s where the next stupid mistake occurred … with 40-sose seconds ticking off, the referee with the ball handed it to the Soviet inbounder and motioned for him to begin.

The Soviet guard was stunned. So was everybody else watching. Again, the buzzer sounded as the ball was inbounded and the panicked scorekeeper simply turned off the clock.

That was the so-called SECOND CHANCE. Again, it wasn’t a chance – and if they had scored, it wouldn’t have counted.

More confusion ensured and into the melee stepped the British head of FIBA. His intervention was probably illegal, but again, like everybody else, he was trying to create a fair outcome. All he did was order what the officials had ordered after the first screwup – that the clock be reset to three seconds.

This was the so-called THIRD chance and it was a chance – the only chance the Russians were given after Collins’ free throw.

There was one final bit of confusion. Tom McMillen, guarding in the inbounds pass, was hopping on the out-of-bounds line as the official prepared to hand the ball to the inbounds passer. He ordered McMillen back off the line. That is proper and correct -- McMillen was violating the rules as he broke the plane of the end line. But with the language barrier and in the confusion, McMillen misunderstood his order and backed far away from the inbounds passer. He ended up about the foul line – not close enough to hinder the passer, but not back enough to play any effective defense.

In the end, the Russians hit a hail-mary pass to Belov as Joyce and Jim Forbes, the two deep defenders for the US, knocked each other off and gave him an easy layup.

Ever since, we’ve claimed we were robbed. Well, we weren’t. We were the victims of a very mismanaged end-game … we just didn’t handle it as well as the Russians.

Instead of blaming the officials for our loss, we should ask what the hell Hank Iba was thinking at the end? The tallest American on the floor in those fatal three seconds was McMillen, who was defending (or in point of fact, not defending) the inbounds pass. Underneath the basket, he has 6-3 Joyce and 6-5 Forbes.

On the bench, he has 7-4 Tom Burleson, a superb shotblocker. And 6-9 Bobby Jones, the greatest defensive forward of his generation. Why weren’t they out there to defend the US basket?

Americans have whined a lot about that game – even going so far as to invent things (I’ve heard Joyce complain that Belov pushed off to catch the pass … watch the film, he does nothing of the sort). But I think a fair examination of the situation HAS to lead to the conclusion that justice was done. The Russians deserved the gold medal.

It all reminds me of Duke's win at Virginia in 1997, when a similar screwup by te scorekeeper (and the officials) led to a bizarre end-game that probably screwed the Cavs and gave Duke the victory. In that situation, mistakes were made and Duke handled it with poise and the Cavs didn't.

That's what happened in Munich. The end game was a mess, but nobody was trying to screw us -- they were trying to achieve fairness. In the end, the Russians handled with with poise and we didn't.

It's about time we faced the truth and stopped whining about it.

There is a significant leap of faith required for one to completely accept Olympic Fan's analysis. It is one that I, having watched the game as it happened, am not ready to make. While there exist passable "excuses" for the game management that allowed "3 chances" for the Russian/Soviet team, that is certainly not how it felt watching the game. In addition, Olympic Fan's claim that if either "chance" 1or 2 had been successful, the resulting basket/points would have been disallowed, sounds good decades later, but is not supported by any official statements. It is pure supposition. The feeling at the time, and the one that will stay with me forever, is that as long as there was even a hint of reason to "retry" the final 3 seconds, the Russian/Soviet team was going to be given that chance. I believe, and I would venture to guess that the players on that team believe, that if either "chance 1 or 2" had been successful, that the game would have been declared over with the Russians/Soviets winning.

[killerleft]

There is a significant leap of faith required for one to completely accept Olympic Fan's analysis. It is one that I, having watched the game as it happened, am not ready to make. While there exist passable "excuses" for the game management that allowed "3 chances" for the Russian/Soviet team, that is certainly not how it felt watching the game. In addition, Olympic Fan's claim that if either "chance" 1or 2 had been successful, the resulting basket/points would have been disallowed, sounds good decades later, but is not supported by any official statements. It is pure supposition. The feeling at the time, and the one that will stay with me forever, is that as long as there was even a hint of reason to "retry" the final 3 seconds, the Russian/Soviet team was going to be given that chance. I believe, and I would venture to guess that the players on that team believe, that if either "chance 1 or 2" had been successful, that the game would have been declared over with the Russians/Soviets winning.

There were so many problems with the end of that game that no one "magic bullet" answer could possibly be accepted as exactly what happened. I went to the wikipedia article on it, and for the first time really see what a horrible mess the refs and Olympic officials made. What made the outcome even harder to take is the total lack of communication from the refs concerning their decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_at_the_1972_Summer_Olympics

After reading the excellent (or at least it seems excellent) summation of events, I still have no real idea who should have won the game. From what I read, there is no proof that the Soviets called a timeout. Common sense, however, argues that the Soviet coach most likely did call one at the correct time, and the Soviets should have had one between the FTs. My reasoning is that it was the smart thing to do, and the bench officials were in their feeble way signalling such way too late when the horn sounded as Collins was shooting the second throw. Once that mistake was made, every flub-up that could have happened, did.

You have to read the whole thing to make some order of what went down. I encourage everybody to read it, and then say for sure that either team really won, or lost.

If I had to decide, I'd say we won, but only because of the total mess the official scorers, refs, and Olympic officials made. The game was certainly up for grabs.

[alteran]

I'm mostly in the middle on this one-- it certainly IS time to move on. The only thing that I disagree with in this thread is the use of the word "whining."

These Olympians felt they were screwed. Frankly, they WERE screwed. I'm not positing a conspiracy or anything, just the officials that day were in way over their heads, they made screw-up after screw-up, the situation was exacerbated by poorly-handled language barriers-- and, by sports standards, a tragedy occurred. (And as noted, a REAL tragedy DID occur in the '72 Olympics that was far more important.)

I think it's unfair and unnecessary to use a pejorative term like "whining" towards that team, especially considering the circumstances. I mean, it's the the anniversary of the game, and people are calling them up and asking how they feel about the game.

Is the team supposed to lie and say they didn't feel screwed? Or that they don't feel still wronged or even upset when they play it back in their minds? These reporters are callling them up, and asking leading questions. I'm not really sure what the critics of those '72 Olympians think they want from these guys.

[jimsumner]

Bill Walton lost one game in his entire college career. When asked if he ever thought about that game, he replied "I live with that game every day of my life."

If the players want to hold a grudge about that game, they earned the right to do so.

Me, I have moved on. (although still not over the Louisville game)

Quibble time. UCLA actually lost four games in Walton's senior year.

So, I guess he only lives with the NC State loss. :)

Little-remembered fact. NC State was actually ranked number one when they played that memorable game. UCLA was ranked number two.

Back to your regular programming.

[hurleyfor3]

Bill Walton lost one game in his entire college career.

He lost at least two. Ucla actually lost four games in 1974; Walton definitely played against ND and NCSU.

(Thiiiiiiiiiiis is whiiiiiiiiiiining!!)

Edit: Jim beat me to it, but didn't make a pony reference.

[sagegrouse]

Quibble time. UCLA actually lost four games in Walton's senior year.

So, I guess he only lives with the NC State loss. :)

Little-remembered fact. NC State was actually ranked number one when they played that memorable game. UCLA was ranked number two.

Back to your regular programming.


He lost at least two. Ucla actually lost four games in 1974; Walton definitely played against ND and NCSU.

(Thiiiiiiiiiiis is whiiiiiiiiiiining!!)

Edit: Jim beat me to it, but didn't make a pony reference.

Doug Sanders lost the (British) Open championship in 1970 (http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-ugliestmoments/14/)by missing a three-foot putt that would have given him the victory. He lost by one shot in an 18-hole playoff with Jack Nicklaus. "I really don't think about is as much any more," said Sanders a few years ago. "Now it's only every ten minutes." Sanders, who won nearly 20 tournaments in his colorful outfits, never won a major.

Who can blame the 1972 American team for doting on the game for the past 40 years?

sage

[OldPhiKap]

Doug Sanders lost the (British) Open championship in 1970 (http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-ugliestmoments/14/)by missing a three-foot putt that would have given him the victory. He lost by one shot in an 18-hole playoff with Jack Nicklaus. "I really don't think about is as much any more," said Sanders a few years ago. "Now it's only every ten minutes." Sanders, who won nearly 20 tournaments in his colorful outfits, never won a major.

Who can blame the 1972 American team for doting on the game for the past 40 years?

sage

" For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'."

-- Bill Walton.




(okay, I know it was Whittier, but I've already been wrong about Grateful Red once today so I might as well keep pushing on).

[Reilly]

" For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'."

-- Bill Walton. ...

Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed.
- Emily Dickinson (or, maybe it was Marv Levy)

[roywhite]

With a Bill Walton branch of this thread established, I'll interject one of my favorite stats:

Bill Walton NBA games played 468
Grateful Dead concerts attended 650

Throw it down, big fella!

[johnb]

i wasn't implying that coach k would be whining about it......my point was, that, playing for your country in the olympics was not "just sport".

Well, it's fairly close to being just sport.


do you think coach K is telling doug collins and the rest of the 72 team to "quit whining" ?
if they were his players, I think he would be saying just that.

Olympic Fan's review was, I think, terrific. Sure, there is still ambiguity, but my memory was that there simply WASN'T ambiguity, that we simply got cheated. I also like the fact that it was mostly Lithuanians on the team, Lithuanians who had been savaged by the Russians far more than we ever were.

With the review indicating the likelihood/probability/possibility that the refs were outmatched but trying to do the right thing and that the end-game was essentially a toss-up, then the bellyaching does strike me as whining. To not accept the medal is disrespectful. There are plenty of athletes in every Olympics who miss out on medals via ambiguity, and they are often athletes whose absolute athletic peak is the Olympics, and we wouldn't think much of one of them complaining about it at the time, much less 40 years later. When you add in the reality that most of the players on the 72 team made a serious living off their sport (perhaps not what the current group gets, but they were still much bigger fish than athletes in almost all other sports) and that their athletic focus was not really the Olympics but rather the NBA, then my sympathy is limited. Finally, they were the most talented team... as others have noted, the fact that the game came down to a single play is simply their fault.

[OldPhiKap]

With a Bill Walton branch of this thread established, I'll interject one of my favorite stats:

Bill Walton NBA games played 468
Grateful Dead concerts attended 650

Throw it down, big fella!

Wonder which was tougher on his knees. The kids, they dance and shake their bones . . . .

[mgtr]

If anybody should be whining, I think it is the athletes who would have been in the 1980 games, had we not boycotted them. For many, that would have been their one shot.

[rsvman]

I saw the game. I remember feeling like we got screwed.


Having said that, they should accept the medals, and it really is well past time to get over it.

[alteran]

Having said that, they should accept the medals, and it really is well past time to get over it.

Just an interesting note-- IMNSHO, the IOC has kind of perpetuated this for years by insisting that the team can only recieve the silver medals IF they agree to accept them unanimously, entirely on the IOC's terms (at the time of this article, in a public ceremony)-- or no medals for anybody.

Fourth paragraph (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1003894/2/index.htm).

That's right, one holdout stops the whole thing. That strike anyone as a recipe for success?

The article linked above-- from 1992-- gets everyone on the record. All but 2 US players PUBLICLY vote to refuse the medal (although several more say they'd accept it if it were sent to them without fanfare). But the IOC maintains that when contacted privately, all but 2 actually wanted the medal (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1003894/11/index.htm).

12 NBA basketball egos (most of these guys became NBA pros), and the IOC thinks not one will be ego-tacular enough to scotch the deal for the whole crew? I'd love to sell the IOC bridges and swampland.

I'll go on the record here and predict there's no way in Chapel Hill these medals ever get accepted with those stipulations.

[Reilly]

So the 1992 SI piece linked above says the medals are in a bank vault and the 1992 NBC piece linked above makes a point of disputing that.

[BD80]

... The article linked above-- from 1992-- gets everyone on the record. All but 2 US players PUBLICLY vote to refuse the medal (although several more say they'd accept it if it were sent to them without fanfare). But the IOC maintains that when contacted privately, all but 2 actually wanted the medal (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1003894/11/index.htm). ...

Of those RESPONDING. Several didn't even respond - pretty clear the non-responses were NO. Frankly, I wouldn't trust the IOC figure.

The article brings back memories of the political climate of the time. The team's refusal to accept the medals was a message, and to accept them now would demean that effort.

I had forgotten the appeal was rejected 3-2. Soviet block v "free" states.

[hq2]

Wonder which was tougher on his knees. The kids, they dance and shake their bones . . . .

Aside on Walton: used to see him at all the Dead shows in the late 70s. Couldn't miss him - giant red head standing a foot
above the crowd. Yeah, I think dancing at the shows didn't help his (constant) injury recovery much.

[blazindw]

So the 1992 SI piece linked above says the medals are in a bank vault and the 1992 NBC piece linked above makes a point of disputing that.

They're in a vault at the IOC Museum in Lausanne, Switzerland. At least, they were there in 2000 when I visited when I was on a national track team competing overseas. They made a point of showing us a couple of the medals and say the rest were in a vault on the premises should the players ever want to claim them.

[BD80]

Aside on Walton: used to see him at all the Dead shows in the late 70s. Couldn't miss him - giant red head standing a foot
above the crowd. Yeah, I think dancing at the shows didn't help his (constant) injury recovery much.

I am certain he was well medicated at each concert. He didn't feel a thing.

[OldPhiKap]

Aside on Walton: used to see him at all the Dead shows in the late 70s. Couldn't miss him - giant red head standing a foot
above the crowd. Yeah, I think dancing at the shows didn't help his (constant) injury recovery much.

To quote Bob Weir, "he is a truly large individual."

(met him backstage at a New Year's show -- all he could do was smile, smile, smile . . . )

[hq2]

(met him backstage at a New Year's show -- all he could do was smile, smile, smile . . . )

"You know better, but I know him!"

[throatybeard]

Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed.
- Emily Dickinson (or, maybe it was Marv Levy)

Nothing is so sad as defeat, except victory -- Will Percy

[tele]

I'll attempt to add my well intentioned but probably flawed interpretation, if you'll follow me.. First, I agree with previous posters that responding to questions on a 20'th anniversary or any time really, is not whining. Also think it is totally up to the players and the team to decide if they accept the medals or how they view the result of the game. I've been on teams and seen other teams jobbed out of games and championships and you never forget them.

I watched the game and the endgame wasn't the only "questionable" sequence and the atmosphere and calls weren't in the US favor at all. So at the end game it was almost a what else can possibly happen and it was hard to believe what did.

Lastly, my own slightly different interpretation of the timeout rules and the free throw sequence: the Russian coach may have signaled for a timeout, and the scorer may have buzzed for a timeout but the ref with the ball was correct to hand the ball to Collins for his second shot, because the opposing team can't be awarded a timeout between free throws. So the clock operator/scorer was incorrectly calling a stoppage of play and it wasn't awarded by the ref, play on. The russian player correctly grabbed the ball after the second made free throw and in bounded it, because the ball in international play is not dead after a made basket or free throw. So no stoppage of play should have occurred after this point either. The game was over and there was no error that needed to be corrected at that point by the refs, even if the russian coach wanted it or the clock operator guessed there might be. After that it was just compounded by mistakes and bad judgement. The Fiba official should have said the game was over after the russians failed to score after the Collins free throw but added to the mistakes by replaying the three seconds a third time. This was at best a mistaken attempt at fairness, but still incorrect.

It wasn't like the Soviet coach was above feigning outrage over something to gain an advantage in trying to win the game either. 40 years and that may not be so well remembered. The US won the game twice and lost on the Russians 3'rd try. I guess they shouldn't have put themselves in that position.

[Reilly]

... The russian player correctly grabbed the ball after the second made free throw and in bounded it... So no stoppage of play should have occurred after this point either. The game was over and there was no error that needed to be corrected at that point by the refs, even if the russian coach wanted it or the clock operator guessed there might be. ....

On the first attempt, didn't the ref stop play before the game was over? Perhaps the error that needed to be corrected is that the ref improperly stopped the first attempt -- short-circuited it. Looks that way from the video linked above. Maybe there should not have been a stoppage, but there was a stoppage -- so that error needs fixing.

[dukeofcalabash]

I saw this game along with my neighborhood pals and I'll stand by the men who were in the game, we were robbed!

[killerleft]

I'll attempt to add my well intentioned but probably flawed interpretation, if you'll follow me.. First, I agree with previous posters that responding to questions on a 20'th anniversary or any time really, is not whining. Also think it is totally up to the players and the team to decide if they accept the medals or how they view the result of the game. I've been on teams and seen other teams jobbed out of games and championships and you never forget them.

I watched the game and the endgame wasn't the only "questionable" sequence and the atmosphere and calls weren't in the US favor at all. So at the end game it was almost a what else can possibly happen and it was hard to believe what did.

Lastly, my own slightly different interpretation of the timeout rules and the free throw sequence: the Russian coach may have signaled for a timeout, and the scorer may have buzzed for a timeout but the ref with the ball was correct to hand the ball to Collins for his second shot, because the opposing team can't be awarded a timeout between free throws. So the clock operator/scorer was incorrectly calling a stoppage of play and it wasn't awarded by the ref, play on. The russian player correctly grabbed the ball after the second made free throw and in bounded it, because the ball in international play is not dead after a made basket or free throw. So no stoppage of play should have occurred after this point either. The game was over and there was no error that needed to be corrected at that point by the refs, even if the russian coach wanted it or the clock operator guessed there might be. After that it was just compounded by mistakes and bad judgement. The Fiba official should have said the game was over after the russians failed to score after the Collins free throw but added to the mistakes by replaying the three seconds a third time. This was at best a mistaken attempt at fairness, but still incorrect.

It wasn't like the Soviet coach was above feigning outrage over something to gain an advantage in trying to win the game either. 40 years and that may not be so well remembered. The US won the game twice and lost on the Russians 3'rd try. I guess they shouldn't have put themselves in that position.

From the wiki article I linked several posts back:

When play was stopped, the Soviets pressed their argument about the time-out, with Kondrashin and Bashkin claiming that it had been called as soon as Collins was fouled. By the rules at that time, a time-out could be requested either by informing the scorer's table directly, or by pressing the button of an electronic signaling device, which in turn would illuminate a light bulb at the scorer's table to alert the officials there of the coach's desire for a time-out;[1] according to Kondrashin, he requested his time-out by pressing the button. Also by the rules at the time, upon calling a time-out prior to free throws, the coach was allowed to choose to have it awarded either before the first free throw or between the two free throws;[note 1] he said he had chosen to take it between the two free throws.[2] The game's referees, however, were not informed of a Soviet time-out request prior to giving the ball to Collins for the second free throw.

THIS is the crux of the issue. IF the Russkies indeed called the timeout, then THEY were the ones who were wronged initially. All the other foul-ups were done in response to this alledged error by the German goobers at the scorer's table. Whatever was the truth of the matter, there was a language barrier that helped with all the confusion.

Maybe player Tom McMillen had it right when he proposed later, as a U.S. Representative, that BOTH teams should have gold medals.

[johnb]

The Ukranians were cheated out of 6 medals in 2012:
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/sport/azarov-ukraine-lost-six-olympic-medals-due-to-unfair-referees-311288.html

Daley shouldn't have gotten a repeat dive, which got him a medal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jecuf1jpuCo

The US Women's Soccer team shouldn't have won the 2012 gold medal:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/unfair-u.s.-soccer-win-a-model-for-obama/article/2504576#.UD5J3ZESFkQ

Russia was cheated out of boxing medals:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/269334/sports/othersports/olympics-russian-sports-minister-accuses-brits-of-unfair-play

China was treated unfairly:
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/726480.shtml

India was treated unfairly:
http://www.mid-day.com/sports/2012/aug/090812-Controversy-in-the-ring-India-feel-bad-refereeing-cost-Devendro-Olympic-medal.htm

Africa was treated unfairly:
http://newafricaanalysis.co.uk/index.php/2012/08/olympics-level-playing-field-for-funding-anyone/

Paralympians are treating each other unfairly (ie, cheating):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9502502/Paralympics-2012-disabled-athletes-bending-rules-in-quest-for-gold-medals.html

Lolo Jones was treated unfairly:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/07/new-york-times-attack-on-olympic-athlete-lolo-jones-unfounded-and-unfair.html

Jim Thorpe was treated unfairly:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Why-Are-Jim-Thorpes-Olympic-Records-Still-Not-Recognized.html?c=y&page=2


And while the the list goes on, our bball players should suck it up and accept their silvers...

[oldnavy]

From the wiki article I linked several posts back:

When play was stopped, the Soviets pressed their argument about the time-out, with Kondrashin and Bashkin claiming that it had been called as soon as Collins was fouled. By the rules at that time, a time-out could be requested either by informing the scorer's table directly, or by pressing the button of an electronic signaling device, which in turn would illuminate a light bulb at the scorer's table to alert the officials there of the coach's desire for a time-out;[1] according to Kondrashin, he requested his time-out by pressing the button. Also by the rules at the time, upon calling a time-out prior to free throws, the coach was allowed to choose to have it awarded either before the first free throw or between the two free throws;[note 1] he said he had chosen to take it between the two free throws.[2] The game's referees, however, were not informed of a Soviet time-out request prior to giving the ball to Collins for the second free throw.

THIS is the crux of the issue. IF the Russkies indeed called the timeout, then THEY were the ones who were wronged initially. All the other foul-ups were done in response to this alledged error by the German goobers at the scorer's table. Whatever was the truth of the matter, there was a language barrier that helped with all the confusion.

Maybe player Tom McMillen had it right when he proposed later, as a U.S. Representative, that BOTH teams should have gold medals.

I think they should get the teams back together and play a one game winner take all. Use the money generated for the charity of the winners choice. I would watch under one condition, no short shorts!

[Brian913]

By far the most comprehensive description of this is at http://www.last3seconds.com/Usoc_Appeal.shtml.

The appeal (including the statements of the referee and scorekeeper,) together with video and other materials are all here.

BTW - both the scorekeeper and ref agree that the US was robbed.

[killerleft]

By far the most comprehensive description of this is at http://www.last3seconds.com/Usoc_Appeal.shtml.

The appeal (including the statements of the referee and scorekeeper,) together with video and other materials are all here.

BTW - both the scorekeeper and ref agree that the US was robbed.

This still ignores the timeout the Soviets apparently (almost certainly) called that should have happened after the first free throw by Collins. At worst (for them), the Soviets set up their play and get their substitute "Grant Hill" in the game to make the pass to "Laettner". Once the scorer didn't let the refs know about the timeout, the Russians are the victims. Then we get our chance at victimhood a bit later.

Hank Iba was the real goat. He didn't take advantage of the strengths of the U.S. team throughout the game, and then set up a defense that only needed a fair pass to leave the U.S. in position to lose the game on that last play. I can't imagine Coach K doing either of these things.

I think it's fair to say that if the teams were reversed and it was our timeout that wasn't given, we'd be grinning about how fate, an incompetent scorers' table, and a couple of idiot administrators finally gave us our three seconds to win, and that we did it.

[Brian913]

This still ignores the timeout the Soviets apparently (almost certainly) called that should have happened after the first free throw by Collins. At worst (for them), the Soviets set up their play and get their substitute "Grant Hill" in the game to make the pass to "Laettner". Once the scorer didn't let the refs know about the timeout, the Russians are the victims. Then we get our chance at victimhood a bit later.

Hank Iba was the real goat. He didn't take advantage of the strengths of the U.S. team throughout the game, and then set up a defense that only needed a fair pass to leave the U.S. in position to lose the game on that last play. I can't imagine Coach K doing either of these things.

I think it's fair to say that if the teams were reversed and it was our timeout that wasn't given, we'd be grinning about how fate, an incompetent scorers' table, and a couple of idiot administrators finally gave us our three seconds to win, and that we did it.

Given that you accept the Soviet position without any doubt - answer this question: If they wanted a timeout, and it was improperly denied, why didn't they call a timeout after the second foul shot? Instead, they just put the ball back into play. There was a lot more time to call one at that time than there was in the one second between the first FT and the ball being put back into play.

[killerleft]

Given that you accept the Soviet position without any doubt - answer this question: If they wanted a timeout, and it was improperly denied, why didn't they call a timeout after the second foul shot? Instead, they just put the ball back into play. There was a lot more time to call one at that time than there was in the one second between the first FT and the ball being put back into play.

You have to read the accounts to understand that, but it was not possible to call a timeout at that time. The ball was "in play" after the free throws. The "Soviet position", as you call it, is why the whole mess occurred. It's why the horn sounded (too late) while Collins shot the free throw. It's why the British guy came from out of the crowd (in violation of the rules) to demand they put back 3 seconds on the clock. Sometimes you just gotta go with the answer that fits rather than the one that bails out the U.S., no matter how neat and conspiratorial our answer sounds.

Once the timeout was not called, a "correct" finish to the game was not possible. Everything that followed was contrived, cobbled together, folly upon folly. Collins second free throw should have been taken after the timeout that was not called. Didn't happen.

At no point have I said that the Soviets should have won the game. Just that once the timeout was NOT given, no finish would have been satisfactory to whichever team lost. There is no doubt that as things transpired AFTER the Collins free throws, we got royally screwed. The U.S. could have made several different protests that would have been upheld IF the protest vote wasn't destined to go according to Cold War allegiances. The Soviets could have protested re: the timeout if they had lost. I am guessing that the illegal participation by the Soviet "Grant Hill" wasn't even discovered until later. I'm not even sure if anybody figured out that the Soviets had never been given a timeout until sometime later. The Three Stooges could not have made a bigger mess.

For me, too many things happened that point to the Soviet coach truly not getting his timeout between the free throws. If you want to keep the view that we got hosed, well, fine. There is no doubt we did once the game's flow was forever altered by a mistake from the scorer's table. And there is no hard evidence that I know about that can prove the Russian coach actually called the timeout. If he didn't call one, that was one dumb son of a gun.

[Brian913]

You have to read the accounts to understand that, but it was not possible to call a timeout at that time. The ball was "in play" after the free throws. The "Soviet position", as you call it, is why the whole mess occurred. It's why the horn sounded (too late) while Collins shot the free throw. It's why the British guy came from out of the crowd (in violation of the rules) to demand they put back 3 seconds on the clock. Sometimes you just gotta go with the answer that fits rather than the one that bails out the U.S., no matter how neat and conspiratorial our answer sounds.


For me, too many things happened that point to the Soviet coach truly not getting his timeout between the free throws. If you want to keep the view that we got hosed, well, fine. There is no doubt we did once the game's flow was forever altered by a mistake from the scorer's table. And there is no hard evidence that I know about that can prove the Russian coach actually called the timeout. If he didn't call one, that was one dumb son of a gun.

You have to read the RULES to understand that the ball was dead after the free throw was made - it went back into play when the throw in was made by the Soviet player. A timeout could have been called then - there was more time to do it than between the foul shots.

How about this explanation - which is the one that fits - the coach didn't call the timeout in time for the scorer to sound the horn, it looks to me that there was a second between the free throws that the ball was not live or in play.

[Brian913]

You have to read the RULES to understand that the ball was dead after the free throw was made - it became live when the throw in was made by the Soviet player. A timeout could have been called then - there was more time to do it than between the foul shots.

How about this explanation - which is the one that fits - the coach didn't call the timeout in time for the scorer to sound the horn, it looks to me that there was a second between the free throws that the ball was not live or in play.

I hate the fact that posts can't be edited. I realized my mistake when I reread the post

[miramar]

I had forgotten the appeal was rejected 3-2. Soviet block v "free" states.

We are all shocked, shocked that Poland, Hungary, and Cuba voted in favor of the Soviets. (Puerto Rico and Italy voted in favor of the U.S.)

[basket1544]

I played on a team in high school that was undefeated that season leading up to the championship game. The game had a lot of referee mistakes (among other things, I fouled out on non-existent fouls, our point guard was given a technical for glaring at an opponent and our assistant coach was tossed during the first overtime) and we lost by 1 point in double-overtime. That was over fifteen years ago, meant absolutely nothing to anyone except my team and the team we played against, and I still relive the last play I was in over and over again. I can only imagine how someone would feel after losing a gold medal game to a last second call. I will let Doug Collins and his teammates "whine" about their loss all they want.
-Basket1544

[hq2]

I played on a team in high school that was undefeated that season leading up to the championship game. The game had a lot of referee mistakes (among other things, I fouled out on non-existent fouls, our point guard was given a technical for glaring at an opponent and our assistant coach was tossed during the first overtime) and we lost by 1 point in double-overtime. That was over fifteen years ago, meant absolutely nothing to anyone except my team and the team we played against, and I still relive the last play I was in over and over again. I can only imagine how someone would feel after losing a gold medal game to a last second call. I will let Doug Collins and his teammates "whine" about their loss all they want.
-Basket1544

I think Collins took the loss harder than most, because he feels that he was robbed of getting credit for the game winning free throws, which would
have been quite possibly the two most clutch foul shots in the history of basketball. If he hadn't made what would have been the game winning play, I don't think he would have been quite as upset about the outcome (although, like all the rest of the players, he still would have been furious).