MVC disciplined referee Rick Randall (Ref who made the goaltending call)

[ABC]

Suellentrop has a great analysis, as always, about this on Shockwaves: http://blogs.kansas.com/shockwaves/2...make-the-call/

[SubGod22]

1. Game management is certainly in question....but the opportunity to correct that with a different call was probably not there.

There were no options

2. There is no mechanism for that. The game is over and official, period.

Correct

3. No. Reports of shouting matches between the officials after the game.

That says A LOT

4. Kind of...what the said is they don't want officials deciding games in the closing seconds. I'm not sure that was the best thing to say.

From what I read from Sully, I'm fine with how it was worded. Essentially, don't make questionable calls at the end of a game. If your call is going to decide the outcome, it needs to be 100% certain that what you're calling is correct. They're not saying don't make calls at the end. If there's an obvious foul, call it. If there's a 50/50 or questionable call, better to let it go. Essentially, what we're all taught as officials from the beginning. Nothing new.

[WuDrWu]

@SubGod22:, are you saying there was no chance for Higgins to come running in immediately, also blowing his whistle, and go up to Randall and say..."Hey, you sure about the tending because if you've got tending, I'm calling traveling before the shot..."

[SubGod22]

First, Higgins officially shouldn't have any say on the goaltend since he was at Lead. Unless that's different at the college level. Those calls are for Trail and Center. Now, had he wanted to, he probably could have come in immediately and called a travel, but at that point it was going to be WAY late. This isn't like saying he traveled just before the contact. And if he went up to Randall to ask as you say, coming with a travel at that point is extremely weak and would look horrible no matter what. I'm sure that's why Higgins was pissed about it. Even during live action he had a look on his face at one point that expressed his displeasure. I trust that if Higgins had an option he would have used it.

[WuDrWu]

That's exactly how I was thinking too, I just wanted to be clear what you meant about no options. I am assuming that John wanted to do just that, but it would have been so late that he just couldn't do it.

Thanks

[shockmonster]

The charge was definitely a good 50/50 no call in that situation. The goal tend should have been a 50/50 no call. However, the travel should have been called no matter what.

[AZ Shocker]

The charge was definitely a good 50/50 no call in that situation. The goal tend should have been a 50/50 no call. However, the travel should have been called no matter what.

Exactly! And also....how come that type of "end of the game" call isn't reviewed???? Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly....but I'm pretty sure I've seen officials go to the replay to check for goaltending.

[SubGod22]

Exactly! And also....how come that type of "end of the game" call isn't reviewed???? Perhaps I'm not remembering correctly....but I'm pretty sure I've seen officials go to the replay to check for goaltending.

I haven't. But considering that three pointers are reviewable, I'd entertain the argument that a goaltend could be as well. But, I know they don't want to get the game bogged down into a bunch of reviews. There is a human element to the game.

[rrshock]

Maybe a rule should be made that anything that would be viewed as "controversial" in the final minute is reviewable. Of course that could open a whole new can of worms.

[Kung Wu]

I haven't. But considering that three pointers are reviewable, I'd entertain the argument that a goaltend could be as well. But, I know they don't want to get the game bogged down into a bunch of reviews. There is a human element to the game.

The thing about goaltending is that you are automatically awarding points to a team. Points that probably (statistically speaking -- the average field goal percentage being under .50) weren't going to be scored anyway. When a referee has the power to award automatic unearned points, that call can be abused for devious purposes in the worst case, and immediately decide a game when called incorrectly (as was the case for us). Those are easy justifications for making a rule reviewable by themselves, but if you add the fact that it's rarely called and therefore won't slow the game down much in those rares times when it needs review -- it makes all the sense in the world to be reviewable to me.

[AZ Shocker]

I haven't. But considering that three pointers are reviewable, I'd entertain the argument that a goaltend could be as well. But, I know they don't want to get the game bogged down into a bunch of reviews. There is a human element to the game.

Maybe I'm thinking of NBA games then....BUT man....you would think that type of call on a last possession final seconds scenario should be re-viewable. Did they review the clock on the Creighton debacle in the MVC tourney a couple years???? My memory doesn't remember. Lol

[SubGod22]

The thing about goaltending is that you are automatically awarding points to a team. Points that probably (statistically speaking -- the average field goal percentage being under .50) weren't going to be scored anyway. When a referee has the power to award automatic unearned points, that call can be abused for devious purposes in the worst case, and immediately decide a game when called incorrectly (as was the case for us). Those are easy justifications for making a rule reviewable by themselves, but if you add the fact that it's rarely called and therefore won't slow the game down much in those rares times when it needs review -- it makes all the sense in the world to be reviewable to me.

I know this one wouldn't be one to slow the game down as most goaltending calls are fairly obvious anyway. I was thinking ahead and didn't translate that here well. But like I said, I'm not against that being added to the NCAA for the few times a season it may be questioned.

[SubGod22]

Maybe I'm thinking of NBA games then....BUT man....you would think that type of call on a last possession final seconds scenario should be re-viewable. Did they review the clock on the Creighton debacle in the MVC tourney a couple years???? My memory doesn't remember. Lol

They did review the clock, but decided it was good anyway. Honestly, at the table at that time, they probably couldn't say that he absolutely did not get it off. Now the reviews after the game where Elgin stuck by it was BS, but I'm not blaming the officials for that. They don't control the clock and are only able to use a monitor on the sideline to make their decisions. But the clock is one thing that is constantly reviewed.

[ShockerPrez]

The thing about goaltending is that you are automatically awarding points to a team. Points that probably (statistically speaking -- the average field goal percentage being under .50) weren't going to be scored anyway. When a referee has the power to award automatic unearned points, that call can be abused for devious purposes in the worst case, and immediately decide a game when called incorrectly (as was the case for us). Those are easy justifications for making a rule reviewable by themselves, but if you add the fact that it's rarely called and therefore won't slow the game down much in those rares times when it needs review -- it makes all the sense in the world to be reviewable to me.

Especially on a shot 10 or 15 feet from the basket. That shot was no where near the rim when it was touched. If it was near the basket, I may not be so pissed about it, but there is no way to even guess whether that shot was going in or not.

[SubGod22]

Especially on a shot 10 or 15 feet from the basket. That shot was no where near the rim when it was touched. If it was near the basket, I may not be so pissed about it, but there is no way to even guess whether that shot was going in or not.

The rule doesn't state that the ball has to be going in to be a violation. Just on the downward trajectory or on or above the cylander.