after further review...lexi thompson penalized 4 strokes

[tower912]

It should have been a foul

[MU82]

Huh?  I'm not sure I understand.  With Gonzaga down 2 with 5 minutes left in the game Matthews air balled a 3 pointer out of bounds that was contested by Pinson.  The ref correctly called the ball out of bounds to UNC, but then a different ref reversed the call, saying Pinson blocked the shot when he clearly didn't.  UNC should have been inbounding the ball up 2 with 5 minutes to play but instead Gonzaga got the ball back with time on the shot clock and Williams-Goss hit a 3 pointer to go up by 1.  They should not have had those 3 points.

The difference is that, with 5 minutes to go, that call is not reviewable. The Meeks-hand-on-line call was absolutely reviewable and it absolutely should have been reviewed.

You use the rules you can to make the right calls. The refs did not do that, magnifying their very poor performance.

EDIT:

Actually, I just quickly read that the NCAA said the play wasn't reviewable. I have yet to read an explanation why. If this is true, that is absolutely ridiculous and should be changed.

Just got a good look at the play. The one ref is standing right there, a few feet away, and he's looking down at the players. A much easier call to see than the shot that might or might not have been deflected.

[wadesworld]

The difference is that, with 5 minutes to go, that call is not reviewable. The Meeks-hand-on-line call was absolutely reviewable and it absolutely should have been reviewed.

You use the rules you can to make the right calls. The refs did not do that, magnifying their very poor performance.

EDIT:

Actually, I just quickly read that the NCAA said the play wasn't reviewable. I have yet to read an explanation why. If this is true, that is absolutely ridiculous and should be changed.

Just got a good look at the play. The one ref is standing right there, a few feet away, and he's looking down at the players. A much easier call to see than the shot that might or might not have been deflected.

It was a jump ball not an out of bounds call. You can't review a jump ball.

I definitely did not notice a foul on Pinson. I'll rewatch it on the DVR in an hour.

[wadesworld]

It should have been a foul

If you're talking about Pinson's contest, I just rewatched it and we're simply going to strongly disagree with each other here. If that's a foul then the way the refs called the second half of last night's game was beyond loose, and I don't think anybody will ever accuse the refs of calling a loose second half. Heck, Matthews himself was begging for a deflection call (which it clearly wasn't), not a foul.

[tower912]

OK, we saw it differently.   Meh. 

[wadesworld]

OK, we saw it differently.   Meh.

And the shooter felt it differently.

[MU82]

It was a jump ball not an out of bounds call. You can't review a jump ball.

That's stupid. It SHOULD have been an OOB call.

Fix mistakes you can easily fix. Or don't have replay at all.

[wadesworld]

That's stupid. It SHOULD have been an OOB call.

Fix mistakes you can easily fix. Or don't have replay at all.

Ehh.  You have to set the line somewhere.  If you're going to allow a live ball situation be replayed because someone may or may not have been out of bounds we'll be stopping the game constantly.  Other than it taking too long, I think the replay system in college basketball is about as good of a blend of making sure things are right in the most critical times of the game while also not extending the time of the game and interrupting the flow of the game for the entire game.

[Benny B]

Changing a call in a basketball game retroactively is patently unfair because it has a direct effect on the other team.  Changing a call in an individual sport only affects that player... so why is that wrong?

[StillAWarrior]

Changing a call in a basketball game retroactively is patently unfair because it has a direct effect on the other team.  Changing a call in an individual sport only affects that player... so why is that wrong?

Because that golfer and other golfers alter the way they play based upon their knowledge of the standings.  If I think I'm one stroke behind you, I might make a very different play than I would if I thought I was three strokes ahead.  I might play a risky shot going for a birdie, when otherwise I might lay up and take an easy par.  Or, vice versa.  Not to mention that the golfer in question who thinks she is four shots better off than where she will later be placed may very well play very differently.  What if the scoreboard operator in a basketball game screwed up and in the final 10 seconds the score that everyone saw didn't reflect the true score.  If your team dribbled out the clock because the board said you had a one point lead, don't you think it would kind of suck if after doing that someone said to you, "Hey, the scoreboard was wrong.  You were actually one point behind.  Our bad.  You lose."

I really don't like the retroactive penalty aspect.  I think at the very latest, it should be at the end of the then current round.  I realize that doesn't completely address the problem above, but it does make things better.  It also avoids the absolutely absurd result where the penalty is effectively doubled because the golfer unknowingly signs an incorrect scorecard.  If they rule were that it had to be addressed by the end of the round, then we could have the golfer penalized for the infraction, but still sign a correct card and avoid an additional two stroke penalty.  I think it's ridiculous to penalize a golfer for signing an incorrect card when she thought it was correct when signing it.

[GGGG]

It's really simple.  Once the player signs their scorecard, and a rules official signs off on that card, it is official.  Period. 

[Benny B]

Because that golfer and other golfers alter the way they play based upon their knowledge of the standings.  If I think I'm one stroke behind you, I might make a very different play than I would if I thought I was three strokes ahead.  I might play a risky shot going for a birdie, when otherwise I might lay up and take an easy par.  Or, vice versa.  Not to mention that the golfer in question who thinks she is four shots better off than where she will later be placed may very well play very differently.  What if the scoreboard operator in a basketball game screwed up and in the final 10 seconds the score that everyone saw didn't reflect the true score.  If your team dribbled out the clock because the board said you had a one point lead, don't you think it would kind of suck if after doing that someone said to you, "Hey, the scoreboard was wrong.  You were actually one point behind.  Our bad.  You lose."

I really don't like the retroactive penalty aspect.  I think at the very latest, it should be at the end of the then current round.  I realize that doesn't completely address the problem above, but it does make things better.  It also avoids the absolutely absurd result where the penalty is effectively doubled because the golfer unknowingly signs an incorrect scorecard.  If they rule were that it had to be addressed by the end of the round, then we could have the golfer penalized for the infraction, but still sign a correct card and avoid an additional two stroke penalty.  I think it's ridiculous to penalize a golfer for signing an incorrect card when she thought it was correct when signing it.

I understand the logic behind the argument you're making... after all, we see examples all the time about teams altering their style of play based on the score: the hail mary, intentional fouls, a fifth infielder, pulling the goalie.  But this is because in most games, there are two outcomes - win and lose - and if you're losing, you're going to take risks that you normally wouldn't when you're winning (and vice versa).

Perhaps there's validity to your argument in golf during skins play; however, in stroke play, the dichotomy of win/lose doesn't exist... there's 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, etc., each with a different prize awarded.  If you went to Q-school, I think you'd be surprised to learn that very few professional golfers alter their play based on the scoreboard.  This isn't Tin Cup where guys will attempt a nearly impossible shot just to pull off a win.  When's the last time you saw a professional golfer attempt a Happy Gilmore on the final tee because they're 3 shots off the lead?  That's right - never... because it doesn't happen.  Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. (where the consequence of doing something different when you're already losing can't make things worse), in golf, someone sitting in 2nd place could go for broke on the final holes trying to overtake the leader only to end up in a 14-way tie for 33rd place.

Listen, I'm a big fan of chaos theory, but I'm telling you that the only people concerned with the butterfly effect in golf is the guy on the grounds crew who sprays for caterpillars.

It's really simple.  Once the player signs their scorecard, and a rules official signs off on that card, it is official.  Period. 

So by your logic, USC should get their vacated 2004 championship back?  Because I'm pretty sure the referee signed the scorecard after that game.  They played the game.  It's over.  The path to victory is cheat until you get away with it, right?

On that note, Lexi signed an incorrect scorecard, which by the rules used to be a disqualification.  But those rules were relaxed last year so that a player would not be disqualified if the incorrect scorecard is the result of penalty strokes they didn't know about when they finished their rounds.  (Speculation... most of you arguing in Lexi's defense had no idea about this rule or the change.)

Nevertheless, I checked with Benny Z a couple of dimensions over where the rules weren't relaxed and Lexi was in fact disqualified.... not surprisingly (to me, at least) every one of you here saying that Lexi shouldn't have been penalized are lamenting her disqualification and arguing that she should have been given a four-stroke penalty instead.

In other words, had Lexi been disqualified, all y'all be arguing for a compromise.  Guess what... reality gave you a compromise, and yet you're still bitching about it.

[StillAWarrior]

I understand the logic behind the argument you're making... after all, we see examples all the time about teams altering their style of play based on the score: the hail mary, intentional fouls, a fifth infielder, pulling the goalie.  But this is because in most games, there are two outcomes - win and lose - and if you're losing, you're going to take risks that you normally wouldn't when you're winning (and vice versa).

Perhaps there's validity to your argument in golf during skins play; however, in stroke play, the dichotomy of win/lose doesn't exist... there's 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, etc., each with a different prize awarded.  If you went to Q-school, I think you'd be surprised to learn that very few professional golfers alter their play based on the scoreboard.  This isn't Tin Cup where guys will attempt a nearly impossible shot just to pull off a win.  When's the last time you saw a professional golfer attempt a Happy Gilmore on the final tee because they're 3 shots off the lead?  That's right - never... because it doesn't happen.  Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. (where the consequence of doing something different when you're already losing can't make things worse), in golf, someone sitting in 2nd place could go for broke on the final holes trying to overtake the leader only to end up in a 14-way tie for 33rd place.

Listen, I'm a big fan of chaos theory, but I'm telling you that the only people concerned with the butterfly effect in golf is the guy on the grounds crew who sprays for caterpillars.

So by your logic, USC should get their vacated 2004 championship back?  Because I'm pretty sure the referee signed the scorecard after that game.  They played the game.  It's over.  The path to victory is cheat until you get away with it, right?

On that note, Lexi signed an incorrect scorecard, which by the rules used to be a disqualification.  But those rules were relaxed last year so that a player would not be disqualified if the incorrect scorecard is the result of penalty strokes they didn't know about when they finished their rounds.  (Speculation... most of you arguing in Lexi's defense had no idea about this rule or the change.)

Nevertheless, I checked with Benny Z a couple of dimensions over where the rules weren't relaxed and Lexi was in fact disqualified.... not surprisingly (to me, at least) every one of you here saying that Lexi shouldn't have been penalized are lamenting her disqualification and arguing that she should have been given a four-stroke penalty instead.

In other words, had Lexi been disqualified, all y'all be arguing for a compromise.  Guess what... reality gave you a compromise, and yet you're still bitching about it.

We'll agree to disagree.  I have seen players with a lead play a safe shot.  I've seen players shoot for the pin instead of safely on the green.  If you're arguing it never happens, I don't really know what to say.  Also, I'm very well aware that they changed the rule from a DQ to a four stroke penalty.  I think it's stupid.  You obviously disagree.  I'm OK with that.

[Benny B]

We'll agree to disagree.  I have seen players with a lead play a safe shot.  I've seen players shoot for the pin instead of safely on the green.  If you're arguing it never happens, I don't really know what to say.  Also, I'm very well aware that they changed the rule from a DQ to a four stroke penalty.  I think it's stupid.  You obviously disagree.  I'm OK with that.

I'm not talking about "safe shots" here, I'm talking about making a move.  The distinction is in the alternative... what's the alternative to a safe shot?  Another safe shot?  Hell, there are some situations where there might be five different ways to play a stroke and all of them are safe shots.  On the margin, these shots have minimal effect on a professional player's score. 

Example: #15 at Augusta National.  To an amateur, laying up from 180 yards out might seem like a safe shot, but a pro is going to grab his 5-iron, carry the pond and drop it on the green everytime without a single thought of laying up.  To you and me, the decision probably nets out to a stroke one way or the other because we're not going to carry the pond every time, but to a professional, it has no effect on his score because he will.

What I'm talking about is making a move, i.e. something where ... trying to reach #15 in two shots.  Sure, someone who is in danger of not making the cut on the second day may give it a shot.  Someone might try it on Sunday.  But someone who's in a three-way tie for third place and two shots off the lead isn't focused on the leader - or any other scores for that matter - at that point.  She is going to play her game the same way she would regardless.

[wadesworld]

As said, these things even themselves out.

https://twitter.com/abcnews4dean/status/849109824893849601/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecomeback.com%2Fncaa%2Fgonzaga-north-carolina-officiating-mistakes-meeks-out-of-bounds-fouls-video.html

https://twitter.com/barstooltweetss/status/849090710280261636?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecomeback.com%2Fncaa%2Fgonzaga-north-carolina-officiating-mistakes-meeks-out-of-bounds-fouls-video.html

[rocket surgeon]

I understand the logic behind the argument you're making... after all, we see examples all the time about teams altering their style of play based on the score: the hail mary, intentional fouls, a fifth infielder, pulling the goalie.  But this is because in most games, there are two outcomes - win and lose - and if you're losing, you're going to take risks that you normally wouldn't when you're winning (and vice versa).

Perhaps there's validity to your argument in golf during skins play; however, in stroke play, the dichotomy of win/lose doesn't exist... there's 2nd place, 3rd place, 4th place, etc., each with a different prize awarded.  If you went to Q-school, I think you'd be surprised to learn that very few professional golfers alter their play based on the scoreboard.  This isn't Tin Cup where guys will attempt a nearly impossible shot just to pull off a win.  When's the last time you saw a professional golfer attempt a Happy Gilmore on the final tee because they're 3 shots off the lead?  That's right - never... because it doesn't happen.  Unlike football, basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. (where the consequence of doing something different when you're already losing can't make things worse), in golf, someone sitting in 2nd place could go for broke on the final holes trying to overtake the leader only to end up in a 14-way tie for 33rd place.

Listen, I'm a big fan of chaos theory, but I'm telling you that the only people concerned with the butterfly effect in golf is the guy on the grounds crew who sprays for caterpillars.

So by your logic, USC should get their vacated 2004 championship back?  Because I'm pretty sure the referee signed the scorecard after that game.  They played the game.  It's over.  The path to victory is cheat until you get away with it, right?

On that note, Lexi signed an incorrect scorecard, which by the rules used to be a disqualification.  But those rules were relaxed last year so that a player would not be disqualified if the incorrect scorecard is the result of penalty strokes they didn't know about when they finished their rounds.  (Speculation... most of you arguing in Lexi's defense had no idea about this rule or the change.)

Nevertheless, I checked with Benny Z a couple of dimensions over where the rules weren't relaxed and Lexi was in fact disqualified.... not surprisingly (to me, at least) every one of you here saying that Lexi shouldn't have been penalized are lamenting her disqualification and arguing that she should have been given a four-stroke penalty instead.

In other words, had Lexi been disqualified, all y'all be arguing for a compromise.  Guess what... reality gave you a compromise, and yet you're still bitching about it.

but but but, we are commingling the rules, instant replay and fans calling in what they observed, watching a replay the next day.  when that "fan" called in their observation and the rules officials concurred, it was an automatic 4 stroker as her card was obviously signed almost 24 hours prior.  yes, the old rule had her dq'd, but so what.  much of what b-ball players do today with the ball is like...umm, sir, you'll need a passport for that move.  and palming?