MVC taking hard look at clock rules

[newshock1234]

http://www.kansas.com/sports/shockers/story/815850.html

After looking at the replay --"the entire bucket of views, 100s of times" -- Elgin said he realized the timeline is much tighter than it appeared in the TV truck that night in March.

"It was darn close," he said. "That shot was much closer to the buzzer than it initially appeared."

oh really Doug, thanks for realizing something that we all knew 2 and half months ago

[60Shock]

At least they are looking at ways to try and improve the present situation. Technology may someday get to the point whereby this problem is virtually eliminated. But, no matter what, the majority of us are still going to scream bloody murder whenever the call goes against us.

[ShockerFever]

At least he is owning up to it. Yes, it's kinda sad that it has come 2 and half months later, and not 2 and half minutes later..

[WSUGrad1995]

One of the things I was taught in officiating seminars (baseball, but the principle holds) is the less sure you are of the call the louder you should make it, and the more confident you should seem, the theory being if you are hesitant the players, coaches, fans, and worse, parents, will pick up on it and things will be worse.

It would not surprise me a bit to find out that Elgin knew when it happened that the call was blown - badly - but decided there was nothing to do about it so act confident. Maybe he decided the alternative of trying to reverse the call 10 minutes later would have been worse.

People make mistakes. As long as people are involved mistakes will be made no matter what technology brings.

[SpanglerFan316]

One of the things I was taught in officiating seminars (baseball, but the principle holds) is the less sure you are of the call the louder you should make it, and the more confident you should seem, the theory being if you are hesitant the players, coaches, fans, and worse, parents, will pick up on it and things will be worse.

It would not surprise me a bit to find out that Elgin knew when it happened that the call was blown - badly - but decided there was nothing to do about it so act confident. Maybe he decided the alternative of trying to reverse the call 10 minutes later would have been worse.

People make mistakes. As long as people are involved mistakes will be made no matter what technology brings.

If the mistakes are correctable, is it better to "bluff through" or to correct the call?

[shockar25]

I guess it's progress, but I kind of thought the statements came up short of actually completely admitting the truth--that a bad call was made and WSU got the shaft, but I suppose we'll never get that kind of admittance from him.

I'll just be happy if they fix the issue so that it never happens again. Hopedully Eric Sexton will help to see to it.

[WSUGrad1995]

If the mistakes are correctable, is it better to "bluff through" or to correct the call?

In little league baseball I really didn't have to worry about that, but the point wasn't to bluff through a call. You make the right call but the closer it is the more confident you should act. If you really blow a call and realize it quickly after, you should fix it of course.

In my opinion relative to the blown call in the tournament last year they should have corrected it within 4 or 5 minutes or feigned confidence. I would never want to be in a position where you were bringing a bunch players back from the lockers and run the next set of players back off the court, and again from Elgin's point of view it was better PR for the league to leave the blown call.

From my point of view the official running the clock should have a thorough background check.

[xazshox]

Clock Mgmt

What I got out of the mountain of input on the time clock mgmt of that game was that the time keeper looked at the ref located around the mid-court whereas the Ref down at the end where the ball was thrown in by the Creighton player had a better view of when it acutally touched his hand. As such, the time clock may have not started for almost a full sec too late. It's all water over the dam by now. They need to adopt a different approach using new technology.

[im4wsu]

What I get out of the entire fiasco is this:

1. What stupid idiot wrote the rulebook so shot clock "errors" are correctable, but "game clock" errors at the end of each period of play are not?

2. Why is distinguishing a 3-pt vs 2-pt shot (difference is zero or one) more critical than determinng whether a shot was within the time limit of the period (difference is two or three)?

3-a. Why is the last part of the game treated differently than any other part of the game? If the game clock fails to start at any other time, it is corrected. Of course, it is usually noticed before a shot is taken (I cannot think of a circumstance where it wasn't).

3-b. Why is replay used to determine how many 10th of a second remain after a ball goes out of bounds during the last minute, but during the rest of the game many seconds can elapse before the clock is switched on/off? Clearly, the reaction time of the official, clock operator or both are eliminated in the end-of-period review, but are always included throughout the remainder of the game.

4. This is not a MVC problem, but an NCAA problem.

5. Since there are three officials, which one would have control of the clock? Since officials rotate after every call, how do we know what position on the court this "controlling official" would have when the disputed play occurs? Would said official be the one with the best view? Or perhaps the one that would have to look through six players' bodies to see the play?

I would rather see the officials call the game without use of replay whatsoever. There are many "disputable" calls during a game that could just as materially affect the outcome as the last-second possessions. In fact, had the time on the out-of-bounds been left in the officials' hands, WSU would have had the victory. In fact, had they even gotten that time call correct (the ball is not out of bounds until the ball hits the floor), WSU would have been victorious, IMHO.

[vbird53]

I still think a fourth referee is necessary. They would act as official scorekeeper and clock operator. Why this is left up to the school is beyond me. It just screams conflict of interest.

I know the answer: it would cost to have a fourth, but that's not acceptable with the stakes of the game.

[SubGod22]

If you want an independent official to do both the clock and the score you'll need 2. As it is they use "spotters" to help identify what's going on for the official scorekeeper. On top of that the guy that runs the clock doesn't run the shot clock. So you may need a 3rd then. And those officials would get paid a lot more than the guys they have doing it now. But again, I know at WSU, there are at least 2 or 3 on the table who are officials and do small college.

[vbird53]

Again, I know there are going to be some logistical questions that are raised about how to make it happen, but the home school running the clock, shot clock, and scoreboard creates an instant conflict of interest.

[SubGod22]

What if I told you that those guys aren't Shocker fans? I know one is a huge KU fan actually. Does that help? :D

[im4wsu]

What if I told you that those guys aren't Shocker fans? I know one is a huge KU fan actually. Does that help? :D

It sure explains a lot of what I consider to be the extreme opposite of "homer" situations over the years.

[vbird53]

What if I told you that those guys aren't Shocker fans? I know one is a huge KU fan actually. Does that help? :D

Well, no. :( :( :( :noidea: