I Hate Vandy but…

[cncchris33]

The official was clearly not in position and could not see that Toppin had the ball.

It's just incompetence, not crooked officiating.

I don't disagree about his positioning, but if you watched the game, or even the game before (Tennessee-MSU), since when does the nearest official have to be the one making the call? Multiple times, in both games, the furthest official with the worst angle made the call.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

B) They didn’t make a call. They one reviewed was a different out of bounds situation.

There is no “one”. It was all the same sequence. You don’t understand how this works. The call is a “type” of call. In this instance “out of bounds”. The question they are trying to solve is who made the ball go out of bounds. It can bounce around off nine players, across three different sections of the court, and they can go back and see who hit it out and where. It doesn’t matter if it was player 1 or 9 or where it happened. It wasn’t a confusing call. The video wasn’t confusing. They just looked at the wrong segment.

 

[bigorangepoppa]

Who are you trying to BS.
It would be better to say the official was not looking at the player's feet vs his view was blocked
He is standing in perfect position to make the call, see the ball, and the feet.
He just didn't make the call and ate the whistle.

Ky is the only team that I know of that runs and updates ref stats. Kind of insecure way of thinking.

If the official can't make that call with that position, he shouldn't be officiating anything above YMCA basketball. I didn't watch the game and this shot is the only thing I've seen. I guess the proper question would be, did the Vandy player touch the ball when his foot is on the floor out of bounds, then the Kentucky player caught it after that? If that's the case then it would be Kentucky's ball. And as for when an out of bounds play can be reviewed, it should be allowed any time if it's not obvious.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I had to think about this, but if I am calling a game and a player is two feet out of bounds the first thing I am looking at is the Player's Feet. So yes it was a Missed Call and a Canary ate the Whistle type moment.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I don't disagree about his positioning, but if you watched the game, or even the game before (Tennessee-MSU), since when does the nearest official have to be the one making the call? Multiple times, in both games, the furthest official with the worst angle made the call.

Are we talking about the ref in the picture in the first post? How the hell did he not see Toppin had the ball. Even if he physically couldn't see the ball in his hand he knows the ball is there and obviously Toppin was touching it. And dude it like 3 feet out of bounds.

That guy should be suspended for that level of incompetence. I've seen them call them out of bounds when they barely get near the line.

 

[TNBV]

Are we talking about the ref in the picture in the first post? How the hell did he not see Toppin had the ball. Even if he physically couldn't see the ball in his hand he knows the ball is there and obviously Toppin was touching it. And dude it like 3 feet out of bounds.

That guy should be suspended for that level of incompetence. I've seen them call them out of bounds when they barely get near the line.

So did you really just say that even if the ref can't "physically see the ball" he should just know where it is and who is touching it? Does the ref even need to be at the game for that or could he just concentrate and meditate real hard at home to come up with that conclusion?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So did you really just say that even if the ref can't "physically see the ball" he should just know where it is and who is touching it? Does the ref even need to be at the game for that or could he just concentrate and meditate real hard at home to come up with that conclusion?

Try to keep up junior and follow the context of the conversation. This started with someone saying the ref couldn't see that Toppin had the ball. I said even if he can't see he physically can't see the ball he knows the ball is there based on....you know....reality.

So go and look at the picture in the first post and tell me with a straight face that even if the ref can't physically see the ball that he doesn't know the ball is touching the UK player. Or do you think the ball magically just got there and magically goes back in bounds?

 

[Woodlawn VOL]

If that situation had been reversed and it was for a championship that would have been overturned I have no doubt. With possession being the most important thing with that call, it should have been reversed. The replay rules are total bull crap if they couldn’t review that. Everybody in the house knew that should be Vanderbilt basketball. It doesn’t mean vandy would have won but the refs took any chance away significantly with that farce. It’s shameful, the announcers didn’t even go there. Go Vols kick their arse today! Play all out hard all day! I know you all will! Go Vols whip the cats to oblivion! GBO!

 

[BreatheUT]

As been mentioned, when Vandy got the 24 second shot clock violation and what sounded like the ref blew the whistle to stop play...to allow Kentucky to run a fast break for a layup then call a tech on the coach appeared to be a obvious bad call as well. I'm ok with subjective foul calls I don't think that was what this was.

 

[rojas1187]

I don’t think it was reviewable. It was a no call and they played on. They reviewed the next play a second or two later. Bad officiating none the less.

Right. I’m glad at least one fan on Volnation understood what was being reviewed.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

There is no “one”. It was all the same sequence. You don’t understand how this works. The call is a “type” of call. In this instance “out of bounds”. The question they are trying to solve is who made the ball go out of bounds. It can bounce around off nine players, across three different sections of the court, and they can go back and see who hit it out and where. It doesn’t matter if it was player 1 or 9 or where it happened. It wasn’t a confusing call. The video wasn’t confusing. They just looked at the wrong segment.

You are so far off base. The review attempts to determine which player touched the ball last, not the touches prior.

There are two “out of bounds”. The first one in the screen grab wasn’t up for review. The segment that they look at is the segment that they blow a whistle on. The entire sequence isn’t part of the ruling.

 

[TNBV]

Try to keep up junior and follow the context of the conversation. This started with someone saying the ref couldn't see that Toppin had the ball. I said even if he can't see he physically can't see the ball he knows the ball is there based on....you know....reality.

So go and look at the picture in the first post and tell me with a straight face that even if the ref can't physically see the ball that he doesn't know the ball is touching the UK player. Or do you think the ball magically just got there and magically goes back in bounds?

I can tell you with a straight face that IF the ref cannot see the ball then he should not ASSUME it is being touched. We can clearly see that Kentucky is touching it but tell me if the Vandy player had his hand in front of the Kentucky players hand how would it look any different to that ref with the Kentucky player's body shielding the view? It would not and therefore he should not ASSUME he knows what is going on in areas he has no clear view of.

 

[wmcovol]

Because the refs didn’t have a picture to analyze this 1/10th of a second.

They reviewed it and still gave Ky the ball

 

[Lankykong]

As far as I know, the timing shouldn’t really matter. Officials review whether shots were a two or a three pretty much whenever after the shot happens

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I can tell you with a straight face that IF the ref cannot see the ball then he should not ASSUME it is being touched. We can clearly see that Kentucky is touching it but tell me if the Vandy player had his hand in front of the Kentucky players hand how would it look any different to that ref with the Kentucky player's body shielding the view? It would not and therefore he should not ASSUME he knows what is going on in areas he has no clear view of.

ROFL....you sound like you'd made a great SEC official then. You can't be effin serious. Here it is in real time



Again, tell me with a straight face he can't tell Toppin has the ball even if he can't physically see at the exact moment he's out of bounds that he has the ball. Because if not then he either believes in magic or that Toppin used the force to push the ball back in bounds.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

The official was clearly not in position and could not see that Toppin had the ball.

It's just incompetence, not crooked officiating.

After watching the review....I call BS, he was in position to see he had the ball. He wasn't paying attention to where his feet were.

 

[Switch 625]

Rule 282.41.2.i - Kentucky is allowanced an additional two feet of playing space beyond the perimeter edges of the regulation playing surface

True. When Jay Bilas does his spotlight segment with a Kentucky player it goes from “94 Feet” to “98 Feet”

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

As far as I know, the timing shouldn’t really matter. Officials review whether shots were a two or a three pretty much whenever after the shot happens

That is an exception where they take a look at the next dead ball or other opportunity to stop play. They also review possible flagrant fouls in arrears. They don’t go back two out of bounds plays when the earlier one had no whistle.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

You are so far off base. The review attempts to determine which player touched the ball last, not the touches prior.

There are two “out of bounds”. The first one in the screen grab wasn’t up for review. The segment that they look at is the segment that they blow a whistle on. The entire sequence isn’t part of the ruling.

So now it’s touches you want to limit? None of your stipulations are in the rule. Again, the Vandy Coach, professional commentators, and writers have all weighed in on this, and agree. You asked me to post a rule. I did. You’re rewriting the rule. This isn’t backyard football. You shouting “do over” doesn’t change the facts. Toppin was out. The ref missed it. The reviewed the play. The missed the out of bounds again. Terrible call. End of story.

 

[Lankykong]

That is an exception where they take a look at the next dead ball or other opportunity to stop play. They also review possible flagrant fouls in arrears. They don’t go back two out of bounds plays when the earlier one had no whistle.

Hm, good point. I don’t really know but it was definitely a miss

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]

That is an exception where they take a look at the next dead ball or other opportunity to stop play. They also review possible flagrant fouls in arrears. They don’t go back two out of bounds plays when the earlier one had no whistle.

It’s the same play. You’re lost. Give it up. Toppin saved it while standing out of bounds. It went to the corner and off the Candy player. They made a bad call. They made a bad call on the review.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It’s the same play. You’re lost. Give it up. Toppin saved it while standing out of bounds. It went to the corner and off the Candy player. They made a bad call. They made a bad call on the review.

What kills me now even more is on the repaly 2 refs were in position to make the call, and one of them should have seen he was out of bounds. And it's clear both were looking at his hands and neither were paying attention to where he was.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

So now it’s touches you want to limit? None of your stipulations are in the rule. Again, the Vandy Coach, professional commentators, and writers have all weighed in on this, and agree. You asked me to post a rule. I did. You’re rewriting the rule. This isn’t backyard football. You shouting “do over” doesn’t change the facts. Toppin was out. The ref missed it. The reviewed the play. The missed the out of bounds again. Terrible call. End of story.

There is so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin. They review balls going out of bounds to determine which player TOUCHED it LAST.

The rule that you posted clearly states that YOU are wrong.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It’s the same play. You’re lost. Give it up. Toppin saved it while standing out of bounds. It went to the corner and off the Candy player. They made a bad call. They made a bad call on the review.

The whistle didn’t blow on Toppin’s save. They don’t review non-calls like you think they do.

 

[Stoerner Fumbles]