Tennessee-Rutgers Women's game

[DukeFencer]

Weird things happened towards the end of this game.

With Rutgers up by 1, Tennessee had 3 chances to make a last second shot. Sometime around their third attempt, the game clock stalled at 0.2 seconds, and noticeably AFTER it stalled a foul was called. Despite looking at the replay, they decided that the foul was good, the Vols made both shots.

Rutgers then gets the ball with 0.2 seconds left, inbounds the ball, Rutgers player touches it (while in bounds), and the clock still never starts running - and the game is declared over, Victory for Tennessee.

I noticed the clock stall during the actual game, and during the replays they showed on TV I thought it was very apparent that the clock had stopped and time ran out before the foul was called.

[Cameron]

Well, this thread certainly wouldn't be complete if my avatar didn't stop by and say a few words...

"[In his best Jerry voice] That's a shame."

[YmoBeThere]

I was watching it live also and noticed the clock...it was that obvious. I guess that is why they call it home court advantage. They can't go back and fix it(or can they), but I would think that a new timekeeper and a 1 game suspension of the officiating crew might be in order.

[DU82]

I was watching it live also and noticed the clock...it was that obvious. I guess that is why they call it home court advantage. They can't go back and fix it(or can they), but I would think that a new timekeeper and a 1 game suspension of the officiating crew might be in order.

A clock error is reviewable and they can use the video to correct it, as they did to determine if the foul was before the game ended. The refs should have noticed that the clock stopped at .2 seconds and then used a stop watch to see how much time should have elapsed between the clock stopping and the foul. Admitted with tenths of seconds, it's hard to do manually. Somebody on another site apparently has using a DVR, and said that 1.1 seconds elapsed between the clock stopping and the UT player landing on the court with both feet (ie, before the foul.)

An interesting night to have a ref start a new column on this site!

A question for that ref. I thought the clocks were now tied into the ref's whistles, and that's what stopped the clock. If that's the case, does the timekeeper have a "stop" button as well? If not, it would certainly seem that there's a significant equipment malfunction over in Knoxville. (The clock never started when Rutgers inbounded the ball, either.)

[bludev03]

Precisely. Also, Nicky was already to the ground when the ref raised his hand to call the foul.

Also, at the end of the game, when Rutgers threw the ball to EP113, the clock didn't start. As a result, the ref called the game, but there was still 0.2 left on the clock. I figured they had called a foul on Tenn.

I wonder if CViv said: "I will not be in favoring of continuing the series if my players are going to be subjected to this type of treatment....."

If Pat was a woman of principle and had a spine, she could say: "Hey, our staff made a mistake, and clearly we were at fault, and Rutgers should have the win..."

[ChrisP]

Am I crazy or does it look to anyone else like one of the TN players pulled down their own teammate? I don't have DVR, but I've seen the thing replayed several times and it's really hard to tell why Anisiki (sp?) fell down. In fact, it looked to me like she kind of jumped backward in order to get off the shot and also got some contact. I'll admit that in real time, it looked like an obvious, fairly violent takedown. But...on the replays, I swear I can't see how anyone from Rutgers pulled on the TN player hard enough to make her hit the deck. Maybe it's just me....

[BlueDevilBaby]

Had no idea the clock was operated this way. Feel bad for Rutgers - I thought they would do it.

[Wander]

Rutgers should demand a fairly serious investigation in this. It borders on cheating.

[Truth]

Rutgers should demand a fairly serious investigation in this. It borders on cheating.

While I do think further investigation is warranted to help eliminate the potential for human error in this situation, the association of "cheating" implies that the referees or timekeeper purposefully added time to clock with the intent of providing an advantage to UT. I sincerely doubt anything of that nature occurred here. To me, it appears that UT simply benefited from a unfortunate human error.

This situation is very similar to a Duke game last season where the clock did not start promptly on McRoberts's errant inbounds pass to Clemson for a 3 pointer, giving Duke (McClure, on a great Scheyer pass) "extra" time to get a close shot for the win. Would you also say that this bordered on cheating?

[buddy]

While I do think further investigation is warranted to help eliminate the potential for human error in this situation, the association of "cheating" implies that the referees or timekeeper purposefully added time to clock with the intent of providing an advantage to UT. I sincerely doubt anything of that nature occurred here. To me, it appears that UT simply benefited from a unfortunate human error.

This situation is very similar to a Duke game last season where the clock did not start promptly on McRoberts's errant inbounds pass to Clemson for a 3 pointer, giving Duke (McClure, on a great Scheyer pass) "extra" time to get a close shot for the win. Would you also say that this bordered on cheating?

In each case a clock malfunction had a significant effect on the outcome of the game. I remember the screaming about how once again Duke got all the calls. In that case, the referees reviewed the video and put (too much) time back on the clock--however, if I remember there should have been about three seconds instead of the five they put on. Still time for a play, but not the play that transpired (although I expect we would have run something else). And if we don't get the time, and don't make the shot, we get overtime. In the UT/Rutgers game the officials apparently did NOT review the time, only if the foul was called before time ran out. If they relied only on the video of the play, and not on the apparent malfunction of the clock (stuck on 00.2 seconds, then flipping to 00.0 without first going to 00.1) then their call is understandable. In this case, however, by saying the foul occurred before time expired, they may have given Tennessee an unearned chance to win. As a result, they needed to review the clock. They could not have reviewed the time and reached the result they did. There should be an investigation of the clock to make certain it will work properly in future games, and to assure that it was mechanical, and not human, error. If human error (the timekeeper manipulated the clock), then the timekeeper needs to be fired. I think the officials each need a one game suspension, because they clearly blew the call. However, I doubt the NCAA will want to make any statement against Pat Summit, so nothing will happen.