WHAT is the MATTER with these refs?!!!

[Bravesfan]

Another comedy of errors regarding the refs at the end of the UNC/Washington game. Not so much checking a possible goaltending call at the very end which would have only counted for 2 points anyway. But for not checking the time Washington had left for a final shot after UNC deflected the ball out of bounds with what should have been 1.2 seconds left?! Even the head of refs John Adams said that while it is not required for the refs to check the time unless a coach requests it, he said that common sense should have dictated a time check in an important situation like this. No DUH!!!!

Which brings us to Washington coach Lorenzo Romar. In a postgame interview on CBS, he DID say he requested the refs to check the time, and the refs said it was checked! Uhhh, that's not what the official clock said guys! :roll: There was 1.2 seconds left according to the official clock that was shown on the CBS video.

Let's face it refs, you blew it, you're lazy, and you're not conducting yourselves well at all this year! And these were probably some of the same schumcks who blew some games in the Valley this year as well.

They've got some MAJOR issues that need to be corrected before next season. But perhaps this was another fix job so that a national title contender could advance to the next round? You decide.

 

[tornado]

any shot that is goaltended while on the way down and has a chance to hit the rim and go in should not be waived off...agree the refs were bad -- plus the ball on the preceding play went out with 1.3 seconds left -- not 0.5 -- again refs help the ACC team win..
but the laxity of the officiating has been evident in a lot of these games...the IHSA games were way better officiated...

 

[Beninator]

I thought that the officiating was bad during the Memphis-Arizona game as well. But, that game had a MVC ref so we all know what to expect there!

 

[BUFanatic]

Texas-Arizona was a flipping football game. AND they called a crap four second foul to send Arizona to the line. AND the missed ALL THREE FOULS on the last shot of the game.

 

[jrish12]

Texas-Arizona was a flipping football game. AND they called a crap four second foul to send Arizona to the line. AND the missed ALL THREE FOULS on the last shot of the game.

When you refer to the 4 second "foul" do you mean a 5 second violation? I didnt watch the game but I read about it, and my understanding is that the player tried to call timeout after the count hit 4, which you cant do. Once the count hits 4 you can not call timeout because the count is in the 5th and final second. Its kinda like how you cant call a timeout when you are falling out of bounds now.

Not sure if thats what you were referring to, but thought that was it.

 

[BUFanatic]

When you refer to the 4 second "foul" do you mean a 5 second violation? I didnt watch the game but I read about it, and my understanding is that the player tried to call timeout after the count hit 4, which you cant do. Once the count hits 4 you can not call timeout because the count is in the 5th and final second. Its kinda like how you cant call a timeout when you are falling out of bounds now.

Not sure if thats what you were referring to, but thought that was it.

Yup, that's it. Guess that's what it's called lol

 

[wily coyote]

When you refer to the 4 second "foul" do you mean a 5 second violation? I didnt watch the game but I read about it, and my understanding is that the player tried to call timeout after the count hit 4, which you cant do. Once the count hits 4 you can not call timeout because the count is in the 5th and final second. Its kinda like how you cant call a timeout when you are falling out of bounds now.

Not sure if thats what you were referring to, but thought that was it.

irish 12,rule change several years ago makes it possible to call a time out all the way up to the 5 second count. 4.9 can still get a time out. 5 gets you a whistle for a violation. Your explanation was correct in the past but not now. Time out should have been granted.

 

[jrish12]

I think I liked the old rule better, because the count is in the 5th second. I do think it is alot like calling a timeout when falling out of bounds, which you no longer can do.

Another time violation thing, if you call a timeout at 9 seconds on a 10 count for crossing half court, do you get another full 10 to get it across? Or does the count resume where you left off? Honestly, I would like to see it resume where you left off if it is in fact the other way around.

Thanks for clearing that up though on the 5 count

 

[wily coyote]

I think I liked the old rule better, because the count is in the 5th second. I do think it is alot like calling a timeout when falling out of bounds, which you no longer can do.

Another time violation thing, if you call a timeout at 9 seconds on a 10 count for crossing half court, do you get another full 10 to get it across? Or does the count resume where you left off? Honestly, I would like to see it resume where you left off if it is in fact the other way around.

Thanks for clearing that up though on the 5 count

You are correct in that you are not granted a timeout when falling out of bounds. That was a good change when they disallowed that to happen.

Your other question regarding a timeout at the 9 second count in the backcourt. The official will grant the timeout but, you WILL be given a new 10 seconds to get across the half court line. It would make sense to resume the count but thats not the way it works . The defense gets penalized for playing good defense for 9 secs.