Overtime tip and UConn no-basket

[ChicosBailBonds]

Which is confirmed via a Jim M tweet:  Jim McIlvaine ‏@JimMcIlvaine

Karl Hess just made a statement that everything was done correctly, except UConn should've been awarded the basket

Based on the rule and how I read it, that seems correct in terms of the response Hess gave.  We got away with one there.  There have been games we were on the other side of some calls. 

Not sure in all my years of watching sports I've ever seen that play happen. 

[GGGG]

Seriously.  Points wise it averaged out.  Based on your rationale it is possible that if UCONN did get those 2 points they would have became over confident and not have scored another bucket. 

The fact of the matter was, they screwed up on the points and screwed up on the jump ball flip.  They also screwed up on numerous other calls in the game.

The important thing is Junior carried the team again, people rag on him but as Buzz says he is the single most important guy on the team.

Look, it was a mistake.  A mistake that benefited MU.  I don't think you can simply say "it didn't matter."  Now it may not have altered the ultimate outcome of the game...or it may have.  You really can't state it definitively.

[BallBoy]

I just don't get how you go from article 2 to 3. At what point does an errant shot at the opponents basket become the officials "permitting" the play vs counting as two points for the opponent?

This isn't that complicated. It the refs are the cause then article 3 applies.  If not then article 2 applies.  The player was told that was their basket when it wasn't which was caused by the ref.

[Avenue Commons]

Does this mean we don't get the Win?

[karavotsos]

nbcsports.com has some terrible writers.  MU had a 'furious rally in the last ten seconds.'?  The first basket of overtime was a momentum changer?  Then the quote to the tweet about how that is a metaphor for the Big East.  How so?  Who is the Big East -- Marquette, or UConn, or the refs?  Who represents football?  

The world is full of errors.  The refs made a noticeable mistake in a game that was horribly officiated overall.  Not really shocking.  My favorite mistake of the night was still Enosch Wolf goaltending his own missed dunk.

[forgetful]

Look, it was a mistake.  A mistake that benefited MU.  I don't think you can simply say "it didn't matter."  Now it may not have altered the ultimate outcome of the game...or it may have.  You really can't state it definitively.

Yes, and they made a mistake by flipping the possession arrow to UCONN, a mistake that benefited them.  Points wise the two mistakes were a wash.

Anything else is pure conjecture.  As I said many mistakes were made in the game.  In that one instance two mistakes were made, one benefiting each team.  Its not like they awarded us 2 points and gave us the ball.

[forgetful]

nbcsports.com has some terrible writers.  MU had a 'furious rally in the last ten seconds.'?  The first basket of overtime was a momentum changer?  Then the quote to the tweet about how that is a metaphor for the Big East.  How so?  Who is the Big East -- Marquette, or UConn, or the refs?  Who represents football?  

The world is full of errors.  The refs made a noticeable mistake in a game that was horribly officiated overall.  Not really shocking.  My favorite mistake of the night was still Enosch Wolf goaltending his own missed dunk.

I loved the dunk too, technically I think it should have also been a technical for hanging on the rim, but I think the refs felt bad for him.

[mug644]

My guess is that any formal statement from the officials/NCAA will be that there were two separate and independent decisions made.

First, they will say that the goaltend was an incorrect call, and so it was an inadvertent whistle. Thus, MU (who had the possession arrow, since UConn had won the overtime tip) got the ball out of bounds.

Second, they will say that the refs realized that the teams were going the wrong direction and so they simply accepted all play up to that point but had the teams switch sides.

So, switch sides and MU takes the ball out of bounds.

While the call about the goaltend may be questionnable, everything else seems in order.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Autry said after the game the officials told him it was an illegal shot and that because of the confusion, it was a jump ball...and which time MU had the arrow so they got possession.  I did see the outside official run to the baseline official who made the goaltending call to confer immediately.

Autry also said it was Broeker who was shouting out about it being the wrong way...and that it should have been a 10 second backcourt violation even before UCONN shot. So MU noticed the wrong direction even before UCONN shot and Autry even mentioned something about the bench shouting to the MU defenders to let UCONN shoot it as it would count for MU.  So, MU could argue that Paragraph 3 was invalid as MU knew the situation as that interpretation would have penalized MU.

In all, everyone was confused...the refs probably got it as right as they could after their cluster.

[mr.MUskie]

I'll bet the UConn boards have some hot discussions going on this topic.  

Just a hunch.  

You have to protest this game with BE and play it over from the point of the mistake.
It changes everything. Uconn doesn't have to foul at the end of OT if the refs didn't pooch the start:

‏Dom Amore
‏Courant
" Ref Karl Hess admits blunder, tells Marquette spokesman UConn should have gotten two points at start of OT. "

And I don't want to hear Oh Well from the BE, These guys need to be suspended if they don't know the F#ckING Rules !!!

http://m.nbcsports.com/content/referees-allow-uconn-go-wrong-basket-overtime

Blades, having read your post.I am stunned that three officials would be stupid at the same time.That defies the laws of probability. And I teach probability and statistics. They "erred" on purpose, that is what it plainly was.What's the next move? Replay or just reprimand the refs? Maybe these 7 schools have an inside ref edge on us?

[TallTitan34]

If you watch the replay you can see Broeker on the far right of the scorers table waving his arms and screaming they are going the wrong way.

[JoBo2756]

In a related note, the fact that the refs screwed this up and it's become such an interesting topic of conversation probably helps MUs cause when it comes to our perception as a team this year. Junior's aweome three pointer, the weird screw-up and our winning could get some votes for us come Monday depending on how we fair against GU.

Just a thought.

Otherwise, thought we played well tonight.

[TallTitan34]

While selling off the Big East assets, the C7 has sold the ref rights to themselves.

[nathanziarek]

This isn't that complicated. It the refs are the cause then article 3 applies.  If not then article 2 applies.  The player was told that was their basket when it wasn't which was caused by the ref.

So the refs line them up the wrong way and Marquette's bench is yelling "wrong way". If Marquette is only giving half effort because of that, is it fair to say the game is being "played" in the wrong direction?

Lets take it a step further and say the Marquette team hustles to the correct basket, while UConn to the wrong one. Does UConn get whatever basket they make?

Maybe I'm just too much of a homer, but the rule sure seems fraught with grey area....especially with only 12 seconds of playing time.

[Dr. Blackheart]

So the refs line them up the wrong way and Marquette's bench is yelling "wrong way". If Marquette is only giving half effort because of that, is it fair to say the game is being "played" in the wrong direction?

Lets take it a step further and say the Marquette team hustles to the correct basket, while UConn to the wrong one. Does UConn get whatever basket they make?

Maybe I'm just too much of a homer, but the rule sure seems fraught with grey area....especially with only 12 seconds of playing time.

+1...honestly, at that point the officials should have been allowed to start over with the tip and to reset the game clock....which is the one option NOT allowed in the rule book.

[GGGG]

So the refs line them up the wrong way and Marquette's bench is yelling "wrong way". If Marquette is only giving half effort because of that, is it fair to say the game is being "played" in the wrong direction?

Lets take it a step further and say the Marquette team hustles to the correct basket, while UConn to the wrong one. Does UConn get whatever basket they make?

Maybe I'm just too much of a homer, but the rule sure seems fraught with grey area....especially with only 12 seconds of playing time.

It really isn't that gray of an area.  The rule clearly states what is to transpire and the referees didn't follow that rule.  It doesn't matter what MU thought about the direction of play...it doesn't matter what Autry said...what matters is how the officials lined them up and what transpired from there.

Why do some on this board go to great lengths to crucify the refs for bad calls during some games, yet can't wrap their head around the fact that MU benefited from one in this game?

[Dr. Blackheart]

It really isn't that gray of an area.  The rule clearly states what is to transpire and the referees didn't follow that rule.  It doesn't matter what MU thought about the direction of play...it doesn't matter what Autry said...what matters is how the officials lined them up and what transpired from there.

Why do some on this board go to great lengths to crucify the refs for bad calls during some games, yet can't wrap their head around the fact that MU benefited from one in this game?

Sultan, as a ref yourself, you know the last thing you want is to inject yourself directly in the outcome of a game. No one is arguing that the refs didn't blow it...including themselves.  However, what we arguing is that MU did not "benefit" from the call only...what we are arguing is that both team were "neutralized" by the call on the floor.  UCONN had points taken off the board...but they also gained a possession.  MU benefited by having UCONN points taken off the board but were penalized by losing a possession. 

When the scorer's table and MU's highest ranking Athletic Administrator are yelling In Stephens's ear BEFORE UCONN's shot...and at least a portion of MU's bench is claiming either a 10 second call or yelling to let them shoot--and that causes defensive confusion that benefits UCONN, at least in part, then to allow that rule book call to be followed by the letter only benefits one team and inserts the officials' blunder directly into the outcome of the game.

Therefore, what we are arguing is that the call on the floor, which leaves the score tied, is neutral in terms of possessions, was the most "practical" ruling on the floor as it was the most neutral.  What we are also arguing is that the rule book should allow a judgment fourth option which would possibly include a live jump ball...or a do over if the mistake was discovered on the first possession only.

All in all, a very bizarre event..and frankly I like that the officials admitted they blew it after the game...based on the rule book....but I also see what they were tring to accomplish during the game to neutralize their blunder under some practical judgment because the rule book restricted the best call there, which was a do over.

[GGGG]

Sultan, as a ref yourself, you know the last thing you want is to inject yourself directly in the outcome of a game. No one is arguing that the refs didn't blow it...including themselves.  However, what we arguing is that MU did not "benefit" from the call only...what we are arguing is that both team were "neutralized" by the call on the floor.  UCONN had points taken off the board...but they also gained a possession.  MU benefited by having UCONN points taken off the board but were penalized by losing a possession. 

I am pretty sure that 99% of the time teams would take points over a possession.  UConn clearly was on the short end of that transaction.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I am pretty sure that 99% of the time teams would take points over a possession.  UConn clearly was on the short end of that transaction.

Because of an officials' blunder...MU was also on a short end of the stick on the floor on defense because of confusion that is clearly seen and heard by the side official...I guess you could argue that UCONN had the shorter end of the short stick.  I will argue the neutral call was the best one available because the rule book didn't allow for a fourth option.

[nathanziarek]

Why do some on this board go to great lengths to crucify the refs for bad calls during some games, yet can't wrap their head around the fact that MU benefited from one in this game?

I'll assume you're not talking about me, since I've not brought up the refs. I like debating minutia in rule books—the nfl is especially good for this. Sorry it bugs ya.

So, just to answer my second question above: if Marquette went to defend the "right" basket, any points scored by UConn would be valid, per the way the refs lined up the jump ball?

[GGGG]

Because of an officials' blunder...MU was also on a short end of the stick on the floor on defense because of confusion that is clearly seen and heard by the side official...I guess you could argue that UCONN had the shorter end of the short stick.  I will argue the neutral call was the best one available because the rule book didn't allow for a fourth option.

I'll assume you're not talking about me, since I've not brought up the refs. I like debating minutia in rule books—the nfl is especially good for this. Sorry it bugs ya.

So, just to answer my second question above: if Marquette went to defend the "right" basket, any points scored by UConn would be valid, per the way the refs lined up the jump ball?

Yes.  I don't think there is any gray area about what the correct call should have been, and the referees admitted as such.  Regardless of any confusion that resulted from lining up wrong, the job of the players is to play.  Marquette wrongly benefited from their error.  Now was that error enough to cause them to win the game?  I highly doubt it.  But it seems pretty cut-and-dried that they made the wrong call.

BTW, to be fair, I had no clue what the correct rule was until Chicos pointed it out.  So if they didn't know it either, they tried to do what I think was the most "fair" thing to do. 

[MU82]

I loved the dunk too, technically I think it should have also been a technical for hanging on the rim, but I think the refs felt bad for him.

This is correct. Like Sultan, I also ref basketball. It absolutely should have been a two-shot technical foul,, plus a personal on the player and then possession to Marquette.

The refs obviously also blew the start-of-OT situation.

There were many bad judgment calls in the game -- the most egregious being that ridiculous call on Junior in OT when he was the aggrieved party who was being stiff-armed -- but the two mentioned above were misinterpretation of and/or simply ignoring the rules. A ref's gotta know and enforce the rules.

[MU82]

Kevin Ollie on the play:

"That wasn't the deciding factor in the game. It just got the overtime started in a bizarre way."

Exactly. Even if one wants to argue that it was a factor, it's a pretty big leap to say it was the factor, or even a major factor.

[TJ]

Kevin Ollie on the play:

"That wasn't the deciding factor in the game. It just got the overtime started in a bizarre way."

Exactly. Even if one wants to argue that it was a factor, it's a pretty big leap to say it was the factor, or even a major factor.

It's good to see that the other coach recognizes that the game wasn't determined by a 2 point swing in a tie game with 5 minutes left to play.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Yes.  I don't think there is any gray area about what the correct call should have been, and the referees admitted as such.  Regardless of any confusion that resulted from lining up wrong, the job of the players is to play.  Marquette wrongly benefited from their error.  Now was that error enough to cause them to win the game?  I highly doubt it.  But it seems pretty cut-and-dried that they made the wrong call.

BTW, to be fair, I had no clue what the correct rule was until Chicos pointed it out.  So if they didn't know it either, they tried to do what I think was the most "fair" thing to do.  

I think we are all coming to the same points on this...with the gray area to me being the oddity that the best play for the Marquette players...was to let UCONN score for Marquette. The reason I say this is that MU clearly was yelling to the officials BEFORE the shot and Stephens HEARD them as he immediately ran to the lead official after the whistle to bring it to his attention...MU was not arguing after the play in attempt at some sort of jailhouse lawyering by MU, but before it.  So, MU was also clearly confused DURING the play...or at least portions of the bench and team.

Another alternative call on the floor...based on the rule book...could have been for the officials to call ten seconds on UCONN.  If--and I say if--they had made that call on the floor, which again would have been technically allowable based on the first two rules, what would have been the outcome after they conferred on the correct call and reversed the 10 second call because of the third paragraph? A jump ball and the possession arrow to MU?...or would they have reversed it and put 24 seconds back on the shot clock and awarded the ball to UCONN?  If the later, we would be in melt down mode as I am sure the UCONN boards are on this one.

Did MU benefit more in the end? Yes...did they also lose? Yes.  Again, not to argue this any more into the ground...but it is very interesting because of the totally bizzare circumstances.  Considering the confusion...and the stage of the game...and that there was no time to run to the rule book...I cannot blame them on the most neutral call they could make.  Ideally, the option of a redo would have been the fairest solution as I said and I suspect this rule will be amended.  Yet, you could go 50 more years and never see that situation again.