Please Fix The Officiating!

[sunnyvol79]

Your asking Sankey to fix the officiating?

 

[Vols8086]

Not really. It's possible to criticize officiating without using it as an excuse, and the OP made that pretty clear.

Yet these threads only get made after a loss and never after a victory. But im sure thats just a coincidence...

 

[VolPack22]

Don't forget Fulky getting slapped in the face on the fast break. Also at least two flops by TTU that were called charging.

Yeah they called a common foul and not even a review. Doesn’t matter if it was intentional or not. It was unnecessary contact to the head/neck area. Should’ve been flagrant 1 and we get the ball back.

 

[VolFreakJosh]

A poster with an agenda starts a thread, gives several examples, say certain refs should be terminated, and say it's the worse game ever. He can say it's not an excuse but I've seen hundreds of these threads in any sport and they ultimately are for the purpose of blaming the refs.

I'm not saying the officiating was good. It wasn't. But it was poorly and unevenly officiated on both ends, which is normally what you get with Pat Adams.

There were dozens of these threads everytime Pruitt or Holly lost a game from their apologists.

Where in my post did I say the officiating was the reason we lost?

There were numerous bad calls against us. It wasn’t the reason we lost but it’s still an ongoing issue that’s ruining the game.

 

[VolPack22]

Yet these threads only get made after a loss and never after a victory. But im sure thats just a coincidence...

Normally I would say it’s sour grapes to blame it on officiating because basketball is already extremely difficult to officiate, but this game was an atrocity on both sides. You even had Bilas mutter that Vescovi stepped out of bounds whenever he was saving a ball and they missed that. He also didn’t agree with the goaltending and the charge call. You could hear the frustration in his voice. Those refs were a big pile of foul smelling

 

[JelloPuddinPup]

He has to be touching the net when the ball contacts the rim for it to be basket interference. I thought he got the net prior to the ball contacting the back of the rim.

Honestly, I think it was called because both officials thought he went thru the cylinder and actually blocked the ball causing the offensive player to brick the dunk off the back rim. Obviously, that isn't what happened, but that is precisely why that play should be reviewable.

His action still had an impact on the net when the ball did make contact so it's still ruled as if he caused basket interference. Still super dumb. And yes, should be reviewable and common sense should be applied....but we're talking about college officiating here. There's no room for that.

 

[cncchris33]

His action still had an impact on the net when the ball did make contact so it's still ruled as if he caused basket interference. Still super dumb. And yes, should be reviewable and common sense should be applied....but we're talking about college officiating here. There's no room for that.

From the NCAA Rulebook, Rule 4, Section 5, Article 1a...

You can touch the net as long as contact doesn't occur while the ball is on the rim, above the cylinder, or contact causes rim movement that doesn't allow the rim to return to its original position before the ball makes contact.

In any case, either a dumb rule or poor application of the rule during competition.

 

[Warriorvol]

Was a horrible shooting night, jjj slipping on break away dunk. Thought we should have put bhh with fulkerson and run it inside out every time down court, to try to get more free throws. Just me but I like Powell over bailey Jr everyday all day. Santiago still had a chance for the win. Long teams have give us fits, tt nova

 

[1985Vols]

free throws noone guarding you make them we win

Falling down while going in for a wide open layup that would have put us up by 1 is worse than the missed FTs

 

[sechamp2012]

They most assuredly affected the outcome.

JMO but I felt like they were picking on Santiago and I think it got in his head and affected his shooting. Just seemed like the fouls they called on him early were no calls later throughout the game. I mean they were really letting them play early no whistle once for 3 minutes at one time. SV gets these tick tack fouls maybe ref don’t like foreigners.

 

[JelloPuddinPup]

From the NCAA Rulebook, Rule 4, Section 5, Article 1a...
View attachment 418815
You can touch the net as long as contact doesn't occur while the ball is on the rim, above the cylinder, or contact causes rim movement that doesn't allow the rim to return to its original position before the ball makes contact.

In any case, either a dumb rule or poor application of the rule during competition.

I promise I'm not arguing here for arguing's sake. I just love different views/interpretations of the rules and enjoy this discussion. Here's how I see that rule interpreted and how it's been explained to me when I stupidly thought I could block every single shot attempt in my entire career haha.

"A" includes this part "any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket". Technically there is an imaginary cylinder from the rim vertically upwards and if the ball crosses into that cylinder in any way (even just 1%) while they are interfering/touching any part of the basket, it's by definition a "basket interference", thus the call.

That's why I think it was the correct call. I slowed down a replay of the play on YouTube to .25% playback speed and he's definitely touching/moving the net while the ball is over the rim's cylinder.

 

[cncchris33]

I promise I'm not arguing here for arguing's sake. I just love different views/interpretations of the rules and enjoy this discussion. Here's how I see that rule interpreted and how it's been explained to me when I stupidly thought I could block every single shot attempt in my entire career haha.

"A" includes this part "any part of the basket while the ball is on or within the basket". Technically there is an imaginary cylinder from the rim vertically upwards and if the ball crosses into that cylinder in any way (even just 1%) while they are interfering/touching any part of the basket, it's by definition a "basket interference", thus the call.

That's why I think it was the correct call. I slowed down a replay of the play on YouTube to .25% playback speed and he's definitely touching/moving the net while the ball is over the rim's cylinder.

If the last paragraph is accurate with regard to Vescovi's contact with the net as the ball is above the cylinder, then I would agree it was the correct call. I couldn't find an adequate replay up close that showed his hand contacting the net as the ball entered the cylinder. In real time, I thought he contacted the net before the ball crossed over into the cylinder, and admittedly, it was close.

I'm still not certain that is the reason it was called based on the angle of Pat Adams on the left wing and Doug Sirmons on the right baseline behind the backboard. To adequately make that determination, you'd have had to have seen the play from directly in front or back of the play, not at an angle. Otherwise, they'd have to guess, which I wouldn't put past either of those bozos.

Still, my guess is that their belief was that Vescovi entered the cylinder and contacted the ball. Anyhow, that's why it should be reviewable. I'm fine with not making judgement calls on basket interference (ball on the way up/down) reviewable. But misapplication of the rule should be reviewable, IMO.

And I appreciate the polite discussion as much as you. Good talk!

 

[greenbacknative]

Football...or basketball ? seems to be a year round conversation.

 

[OrangeDog]

The calls that "we" are complaining about are piddling. The refs weren't great, but better than the refs in Colorado (imo).
We were horrible. the game was horrible. if Texas Tech had to go to overtime to beat us...THEY were horrible! I hope they lose the video of that game forever.
Embarrassing for both schools..........OK, and the refs. DESTROY the tape! (can you still say tape?)

 

[JelloPuddinPup]

If the last paragraph is accurate with regard to Vescovi's contact with the net as the ball is above the cylinder, then I would agree it was the correct call. I couldn't find an adequate replay up close that showed his hand contacting the net as the ball entered the cylinder. In real time, I thought he contacted the net before the ball crossed over into the cylinder, and admittedly, it was close.

I'm still not certain that is the reason it was called based on the angle of Pat Adams on the left wing and Doug Sirmons on the right baseline behind the backboard. To adequately make that determination, you'd have had to have seen the play from directly in front or back of the play, not at an angle. Otherwise, they'd have to guess, which I wouldn't put past either of those bozos.

Still, my guess is that their belief was that Vescovi entered the cylinder and contacted the ball. Anyhow, that's why it should be reviewable. I'm fine with not making judgement calls on basket interference (ball on the way up/down) reviewable. But misapplication of the rule should be reviewable, IMO.

And I appreciate the polite discussion as much as you. Good talk!

Ignore the title, it was recommended to me on YT, but it has the full court view of the play after JJJs dunk. Slow it down at 17-18 second mark.

 

[cncchris33]

Ignore the title, it was recommended to me on YT, but it has the full court view of the play after JJJs dunk. Slow it down at 17-18 second mark.

Great angle, and yeah, I'm with you, now. The issue seemed to be that Santi's hand got caught in the net on his way up and stayed in it as a result. Like I think we both agree upon, it was a ticky-tack call that didn't really affect the offensive player's ability to complete the play. SV grazing the net isn't what caused the miss. Oh well, it's over with, now, but I agree, correct call.

 

[chuckb1448]

the ref's did not lose that game last night, our lack of shooting lost that game.

I agree wholeheartedly however the refs all graduated from Texas Tech and it was obvious

 

[Voljlt]

Do you really not understand that we tried going inside with nothing available. They closed that street completely off. What would you suggest?

I would suggest boxing out under the basket instead of scattering to the perimeter. Fight for the ball. Seemed nearly like every shot, there was no one there to get offensive rebounds. Only 10 offensive rebounds for the night. When we are throwing up 40 3-pt attempts, why are we not crashing the boards to attempt to get the 34 we missed back and try to lay something in? Granted, they won't win all of those battles, but they really weren't giving themselves a chance either.

 

[cardvolfan]

I would suggest boxing out under the basket instead of scattering to the perimeter. Fight for the ball. Seemed nearly like every shot, there was no one there to get offensive rebounds. Only 10 offensive rebounds for the night. When we are throwing up 40 3-pt attempts, why are we not crashing the boards to attempt to get the 34 we missed back and try to lay something in? Granted, they won't win all of those battles, but they really weren't giving themselves a chance either.

Attempts from three have more erratic bounces, and you have to avoid the easy basket on the other end. In a low-scoring game it’s paramount to not give up easy buckets. I do agree a few offensive baskets would have been nice, but TTU’s strategy was to build a wall to keep Tennessee from having put backs. Good stuff, though. We’re all on the same team here.

 

[savannahfan]

All we can hope for is that the refs are not biased and over time as many missed calls that go against us don’t outnumber those that don’t in close games.

The number of calls is not as important as when they are called and who they should be called on at the time of infraction. (such as charging, moving screens, etc.)

 

[JelloPuddinPup]

Great angle, and yeah, I'm with you, now. The issue seemed to be that Santi's hand got caught in the net on his way up and stayed in it as a result. Like I think we both agree upon, it was a ticky-tack call that didn't really affect the offensive player's ability to complete the play. SV grazing the net isn't what caused the miss. Oh well, it's over with, now, but I agree, correct call.

100% agree with that. Hated it live, hate it now even in replay.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

The number of calls is not as important as when they are called and who they should be called on at the time of infraction. (such as charging, moving screens, etc.)

The pattern of TN getting 2 questionable fouls called very early on key players has been a problem. It has a huge effect.

 

[whobethis16]

But without one of several of the missed calls TN would have won. Bad calls are part of it. Hopefully over the long haul TN gets their share of gratuitous blown calls and not in the games where TN is blowing out the opponent.

Without the ineptitude on the James steal where he...tried to dunk?...don't even know what the hell that was, and they would have won.

 

[JelloPuddinPup]

Without the ineptitude on the James steal where he...tried to dunk?...don't even know what the hell that was, and they would have won.

Slow it down and you can see his heel slipped on him and he almost hyper extended his knee. He didn't botch it and it definitely scared him (thus why he was not moving and checking his knee when he landed).

 

[allen phillips]

Don't forget Fulky getting slapped in the face on the fast break. Also at least two flops by TTU that were called charging.

Yeah, and it was our guy who was reprimanded for flopping by the ref.