Did Curry bail out the Griz?

[crazycat]

The officals get suspended for one game. Replays confirmed the timeout was recognized by the officials before the horn sounded.

http://bigskyconf.com

Thanks Bengal1. What an unfortunate turn of events. Not just for the Bengals, but the Grizzlies (they wanted to win fair and square) and everyone associated with the BSC. I mean the audacity of an official to not apply the agreed upon rules and to enforce his own instead. It's appalling. This whole thing seems to be the by-product of officials pushing the envelope, and getting away with it, until they feel above everyone else with their authority. It's not the first time and this isn't limited to sports. Art imitating life? Hopefully this is the last time this happens in the BSC.

[technoCat]

I saw the game it should have been called, but then again if ISU makes the one and one at 7.4 seconds it's all moot anyway. Let the kid's decide the game not a technicality in the rules.

[crazycat]

I saw the game it should have been called, but then again if ISU makes the one and one at 7.4 seconds it's all moot anyway. Let the kid's decide the game not a technicality in the rules.

What 'technicality' in the rules are you talking about? Is it just a technicality if someone barely steps out of bounds or barely travels, etc., etc. It's a rule that everyone agreed on. Try telling this to the ISU players if they don't end up hosting a game or making the tourney. "Well, guys and especially you seniors, we're sorry, but since we decided to not use the rules that everyone agreed on in this one instance, you aren't going to the tournament. I'm sure you'll understand, because not allowing someone to mistakenly call a timeout really isn't fair even though we all agreed it is."

The kids(?) decided to call a timeout when they didn't have one and the grown adults(?) hired and paid to enforce the rules as they're written decided to not enforce it. No one was done any favors by Curry's decision to either not know or ignore the rulebook. This is a mockery of the game.

Maybe the NCAA will do away with giving teams a "T" for calling more than their allotted timeouts next year. Maybe that's too harsh of a penalty. What should the penalty be?: 1) no penalty; 2) give the ball back to the other team; 3) a $100 fine.

[technoCat]

I saw the game it should have been called, but then again if ISU makes the one and one at 7.4 seconds it's all moot anyway. Let the kid's decide the game not a technicality in the rules.

What 'technicality' in the rules are you talking about? Is it just a technicality if someone barely steps out of bounds or barely travels, etc., etc. It's a rule that everyone agreed on. Try telling this to the ISU players if they don't end up hosting a game or making the tourney. "Well, guys and especially you seniors, we're sorry, but since we decided to not use the rules that everyone agreed on in this one instance, you aren't going to the tournament. I'm sure you'll understand, because not allowing someone to mistakenly call a timeout really isn't fair even though we all agreed it is."


The kids(?) decided to call a timeout when they didn't have one and the grown adults(?) hired and paid to enforce the rules as they're written decided to not enforce it. No one was done any favors by Curry's decision to either not know or ignore the rulebook. This is a mockery of the game.

Maybe the NCAA will do away with giving teams a "T" for calling more than their allotted timeouts next year. Maybe that's too harsh of a penalty. What should the penalty be?: 1) no penalty; 2) give the ball back to the other team; 3) a $100 fine.

I was just saying that they had every opportunity to win the game on their own. This is a seldom used rule and why should it give a team a chance to win or lose based on a free throw. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been called, as I said in my post, I'm just saying I'd rather have them decide it on the court and not in the rulebook.

No I don't think it should be a 'T', you should give the ball back to the other team and give them the opportunity to inbound. (what I would actually like to see is the refs ignore them and let the player get out of the situation on his own but that of course will never happen). Giving a team a shot at points like that I don't like. What happens in the NFL if you use too many time outs. A five yard penalty for Delay of Game or Excessive Time Outs or whatever it's called. It might make a field goal easier or extend the game but it won't hand you the game. That is my point, sorry for the rant.

[GrizinWashington]

I saw the game it should have been called, but then again if ISU makes the one and one at 7.4 seconds it's all moot anyway. Let the kid's decide the game not a technicality in the rules.

What 'technicality' in the rules are you talking about? Is it just a technicality if someone barely steps out of bounds or barely travels, etc., etc. It's a rule that everyone agreed on. Try telling this to the ISU players if they don't end up hosting a game or making the tourney. "Well, guys and especially you seniors, we're sorry, but since we decided to not use the rules that everyone agreed on in this one instance, you aren't going to the tournament. I'm sure you'll understand, because not allowing someone to mistakenly call a timeout really isn't fair even though we all agreed it is."

The kids(?) decided to call a timeout when they didn't have one and the grown adults(?) hired and paid to enforce the rules as they're written decided to not enforce it. No one was done any favors by Curry's decision to either not know or ignore the rulebook. This is a mockery of the game.

Maybe the NCAA will do away with giving teams a "T" for calling more than their allotted timeouts next year. Maybe that's too harsh of a penalty. What should the penalty be?: 1) no penalty; 2) give the ball back to the other team; 3) a $100 fine.

It's an unfortunate situation. But again, there were many missed calls in that game (Strait being absolutely mugged on the same rebound as I noted above is just one), as there is in every game. But I think if you asked the ISU kids and coaching staff as you suggest, what you will hear is nothing about the call, and everything about them not showing up in the overtime.

[crazycat]

I saw the game it should have been called, but then again if ISU makes the one and one at 7.4 seconds it's all moot anyway. Let the kid's decide the game not a technicality in the rules.

What 'technicality' in the rules are you talking about? Is it just a technicality if someone barely steps out of bounds or barely travels, etc., etc. It's a rule that everyone agreed on. Try telling this to the ISU players if they don't end up hosting a game or making the tourney. "Well, guys and especially you seniors, we're sorry, but since we decided to not use the rules that everyone agreed on in this one instance, you aren't going to the tournament. I'm sure you'll understand, because not allowing someone to mistakenly call a timeout really isn't fair even though we all agreed it is."

The kids(?) decided to call a timeout when they didn't have one and the grown adults(?) hired and paid to enforce the rules as they're written decided to not enforce it. No one was done any favors by Curry's decision to either not know or ignore the rulebook. This is a mockery of the game.

Maybe the NCAA will do away with giving teams a "T" for calling more than their allotted timeouts next year. Maybe that's too harsh of a penalty. What should the penalty be?: 1) no penalty; 2) give the ball back to the other team; 3) a $100 fine.

It's an unfortunate situation. But again, there were many missed calls in that game (Strait being absolutely mugged on the same rebound as I noted above is just one), as there is in every game. But I think if you asked the ISU kids and coaching staff as you suggest, what you will hear is nothing about the call, and everything about them not showing up in the overtime.

This isn't about a missed call. It's about an ignored rule.

Try to remove yourself from this being a Cat vs. Griz thing. And then apply your "let the players decide" mantra to all things. The player decided to call a timeout his teammates and he were told they didn't have in the huddle prior to this play. I'd say the player did (or would have) decide(d) the outcome. Mental ability as well as physical ability is a factor in any sporting event. If a player makes a poor decision with 0.4 seconds to play or 15:21 to play, what's the difference. It's the same thing as a player fouling another player. You can't foul someone with 0.4 to go anymore than you can with 15:21 to go.

here's what the ISU coach said:

“Get a copy of the videotape and answer it yourself,” ISU coach Joe O'Brien responded when asked how he saw the events transpire. “You'll probably see what I saw.”

But Tinkle's response is better:

“It's the point of recognition (by the official) and they were signaling the clock hit zero and I've got to believe them,” Montana coach Wayne Tinkle said. “There's no use crying about it. It happened and it was the correct ruling and so we move on.”

Sorry Wayne, but it wasn't the correct ruling.

I agree with TechnoCat that the penalty doesn't fit the crime in the this case. So ISU should IMO just get the ball back with whatever time was left. Why they grant FTs I don't know, but there could be a good reason for that if there's a way to abuse the too many penalty rule. I think in the NFL if you call a TO that you don't have they take time off the clock and move you back 5 yards. It'd be interesting to find out the origin of this beign a technical foul.

[catamaran]

I saw the game it should have been called, but then again if ISU makes the one and one at 7.4 seconds it's all moot anyway. Let the kid's decide the game not a technicality in the rules.

What 'technicality' in the rules are you talking about? Is it just a technicality if someone barely steps out of bounds or barely travels, etc., etc. It's a rule that everyone agreed on. Try telling this to the ISU players if they don't end up hosting a game or making the tourney. "Well, guys and especially you seniors, we're sorry, but since we decided to not use the rules that everyone agreed on in this one instance, you aren't going to the tournament. I'm sure you'll understand, because not allowing someone to mistakenly call a timeout really isn't fair even though we all agreed it is."

The kids(?) decided to call a timeout when they didn't have one and the grown adults(?) hired and paid to enforce the rules as they're written decided to not enforce it. No one was done any favors by Curry's decision to either not know or ignore the rulebook. This is a mockery of the game.

Maybe the NCAA will do away with giving teams a "T" for calling more than their allotted timeouts next year. Maybe that's too harsh of a penalty. What should the penalty be?: 1) no penalty; 2) give the ball back to the other team; 3) a $100 fine.

It's an unfortunate situation. But again, there were many missed calls in that game (Strait being absolutely mugged on the same rebound as I noted above is just one), as there is in every game. But I think if you asked the ISU kids and coaching staff as you suggest, what you will hear is nothing about the call, and everything about them not showing up in the overtime.

This isn't about a missed call. It's about an ignored rule.

Try to remove yourself from this being a Cat vs. Griz thing. And then apply your "let the players decide" mantra to all things. The player decided to call a timeout his teammates and he were told they didn't have in the huddle prior to this play. I'd say the player did (or would have) decide(d) the outcome. Mental ability as well as physical ability is a factor in any sporting event. If a player makes a poor decision with 0.4 seconds to play or 15:21 to play, what's the difference. It's the same thing as a player fouling another player. You can't foul someone with 0.4 to go anymore than you can with 15:21 to go.

here's what the ISU coach said:

“Get a copy of the videotape and answer it yourself,” ISU coach Joe O'Brien responded when asked how he saw the events transpire. “You'll probably see what I saw.”

But Tinkle's response is better:

“It's the point of recognition (by the official) and they were signaling the clock hit zero and I've got to believe them,” Montana coach Wayne Tinkle said. “There's no use crying about it. It happened and it was the correct ruling and so we move on.”

Sorry Wayne, but it wasn't the correct ruling.

I agree with TechnoCat that the penalty doesn't fit the crime in the this case. So ISU should IMO just get the ball back with whatever time was left. Why they grant FTs I don't know, but there could be a good reason for that if there's a way to abuse the too many penalty rule. I think in the NFL if you call a TO that you don't have they take time off the clock and move you back 5 yards. It'd be interesting to find out the origin of this beign a technical foul.

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

[econ_cat]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

[crazycat]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

I'm not saying to not have a penalty, I'm saying to have a penalty to fit the infraction. I think in the situation you've described the penalty is fine. But in UM's situation, they had nothing to gain. The TO is granted, but once the officials are informed they have none, they need to forfeit the ball. Foul shots in that situation do seem a little harsh.

[catamaran]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

I'm not saying to not have a penalty, I'm saying to have a penalty to fit the infraction. I think in the situation you've described the penalty is fine. But in UM's situation, they had nothing to gain. The TO is granted, but once the officials are informed they have none, they need to forfeit the ball. Foul shots in that situation do seem a little harsh.

Rule number one of officiating is that the penalty has to be equal to both sides...not giving one the advantage over the other

[GOKATS]

There's no sense arguing- it's a rule and until the NCAA changes it (which I really don't know why they would), if a team calls a time out when they have none left it's a technical foul and is subject to the penalty. It doesn't matter if there is 1 second left and the score is tied or five minutes left on the clock with one team having a twenty point lead.

[GrizinWashington]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

Well, I agree that calling TO when you don't have any should be a technical. But your scenario makes no sense: A team cannot call timeout if their opponent has the ball. You can only call timeout when you have possesion or if there is a dead ball.

In this instance, had their been more time on the clock, there is no doubt the Griz would have been slapped with the T (and deserved it). But it was Curry's judgement that the horn sounded before he recognized the T/O. He should have reviewed the video, but I'm not certain it's 100% conclusive. Clearly the clock had gone to zero and the horn sounded, so the ISU clock manager didn't recognize that Curry called the TO and he wasn't able to stop the clock. That sort of stuff happens all the time.

That said, the situation does suck for ISU, no doubt about that.

[STREETCAT]

The officals get suspended for one game. Replays confirmed the timeout was recognized by the officials before the horn sounded.

http://bigskyconf.com

This pisses me off. Not the fact that it’s the Griz, or the Cats, or Idaho. Truth is that I care little to nothing about basketball until March. However this was Fullerton’s opportunity to show that he isn’t a gutless leader, and once again he slaps the person on the wrist and tells them not to do it again. If it was me I would have suspended these three for the rest of the season! Fullerton is a joke no other conference would tolerate this crap!!! Our officals are lazy, due to the fact that their boss is one of the same!

[econ_cat]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

Well, I agree that calling TO when you don't have any should be a technical. But your scenario makes no sense: A team cannot call timeout if their opponent has the ball. You can only call timeout when you have possesion or if there is a dead ball.

In this instance, had their been more time on the clock, there is no doubt the Griz would have been slapped with the T (and deserved it). But it was Curry's judgement that the horn sounded before he recognized the T/O. He should have reviewed the video, but I'm not certain it's 100% conclusive. Clearly the clock had gone to zero and the horn sounded, so the ISU clock manager didn't recognize that Curry called the TO and he wasn't able to stop the clock. That sort of stuff happens all the time.

That said, the situation does suck for ISU, no doubt about that.

Good point GinWA. That's what happens when you type before you think!

My point was, a T fits the crime, which it looks like we agree on!

[GOKATS]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

Well, I agree that calling TO when you don't have any should be a technical. But your scenario makes no sense: A team cannot call timeout if their opponent has the ball. You can only call timeout when you have possesion or if there is a dead ball.

In this instance, had their been more time on the clock, there is no doubt the Griz would have been slapped with the T (and deserved it). But it was Curry's judgement that the horn sounded before he recognized the T/O. He should have reviewed the video, but I'm not certain it's 100% conclusive. Clearly the clock had gone to zero and the horn sounded, so the ISU clock manager didn't recognize that Curry called the TO and he wasn't able to stop the clock. That sort of stuff happens all the time.

That said, the situation does suck for ISU, no doubt about that.

Though it's a slap on the wrist, there is no way in hell that Fullerton would've suspended three of his officials unless the evidence was conclusive.

[crazycat]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

Well, I agree that calling TO when you don't have any should be a technical. But your scenario makes no sense: A team cannot call timeout if their opponent has the ball. You can only call timeout when you have possesion or if there is a dead ball.

In this instance, had their been more time on the clock, there is no doubt the Griz would have been slapped with the T (and deserved it). But it was Curry's judgement that the horn sounded before he recognized the T/O. He should have reviewed the video, but I'm not certain it's 100% conclusive. Clearly the clock had gone to zero and the horn sounded, so the ISU clock manager didn't recognize that Curry called the TO and he wasn't able to stop the clock. That sort of stuff happens all the time.

That said, the situation does suck for ISU, no doubt about that.

Though it's a slap on the wrist, there is no way in hell that Fullerton would've suspended three of his officials unless the evidence was conclusive.

Fullerton's comment puts to rest the conclusive debate:

"We give officials great flexibility to interpret plays within the rules,’’ Fullerton said. "We never allow officials to set aside a rule. We’re not sure whether the game would have ended on the free-throw line, but Idaho State should have been given that opportunity.’’

Pretty much says it all. Again this isn't about the Griz, it's about what's fair. Should the penalty for the rule be changed? Maybe. Should ISU been given an opportunity to win the game? Definitely.

[Hyalite Hank]

Here's another thing that has been missed in this, and that while everyone is Curry bashing (he made the call), and rightfully so, another official on the crew was Scofield, who if memory serves correct was suspened last year because he blew a shot clock call when our ladies played at Idaho State. Maybe it's something in the water in Pocatello. What does the commish do to a guy who's been suspended twice in two years? Scofield is also the one with big-time rabbit ears.

[GOKATS]

In a situation like this you have to have some sort of penalty otherwise teams would use the "loophole" to conserve time when they were behind

Amen! The purpose of calling a TO in these situations is to stop the clock. If the other team has the ball and you call a TO knowing you don't have one, and all the refs do is give the other team the ball out of bounds, that is a huge advantage for you and an unfair penalty to the other team. There has to be a stiffer penalty to prevent this. The current rule works fine...if it's enforced.

Well, I agree that calling TO when you don't have any should be a technical. But your scenario makes no sense: A team cannot call timeout if their opponent has the ball. You can only call timeout when you have possesion or if there is a dead ball.

In this instance, had their been more time on the clock, there is no doubt the Griz would have been slapped with the T (and deserved it). But it was Curry's judgement that the horn sounded before he recognized the T/O. He should have reviewed the video, but I'm not certain it's 100% conclusive. Clearly the clock had gone to zero and the horn sounded, so the ISU clock manager didn't recognize that Curry called the TO and he wasn't able to stop the clock. That sort of stuff happens all the time.

That said, the situation does suck for ISU, no doubt about that.

Though it's a slap on the wrist, there is no way in hell that Fullerton would've suspended three of his officials unless the evidence was conclusive.

Fullerton's comment puts to rest the conclusive debate:

"We give officials great flexibility to interpret plays within the rules,’’ Fullerton said. "We never allow officials to set aside a rule. We’re not sure whether the game would have ended on the free-throw line, but Idaho State should have been given that opportunity.’’

Pretty much says it all. Again this isn't about the Griz, it's about what's fair. Should the penalty for the rule be changed? Maybe. Should ISU been given an opportunity to win the game? Definitely.

I agree with what you're saying, but why would the penalty change? The only reason this discussion is going on is because the rule was violated (and not correctly enforced by the official(s)) with something like a second to go and the score tied. What if the player had made the same blunder at the 1:27 mark? Fact is there was a violation of the rules which should have resulted in a technical foul regardless of anything else that was going on at the time and the other team should have gone to the line.

[crazycat]

I agree with what you're saying, but why would the penalty change? The only reason this discussion is going on is because the rule was violated (and not correctly enforced by the official(s)) with something like a second to go and the score tied. What if the player had made the same blunder at the 1:27 mark? Fact is there was a violation of the rules which should have resulted in a technical foul regardless of anything else that was going on at the time and the other team should have gone to the line.

We have two different items going on at once. First, In this particular instance, the rule should've been applied and ISU should've shot two FTs. Why? Because that's the current rule. Second, The rules committee should re-examine if this penalty is fitting. You need to have the ball to call a timeout. So why not just forfeit the ball if you accidently call timeout?

[noreastercat]

crazycat--what in heaven's name are you doing up at 3:47 a.m.