Ref's Gave the Game to Memphis

#1
Vol67

Vol67

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
7,046
Likes
1,682
#1
Wonder how much Calipari paid the refs for that one. Horrible call
 
#4
#4
The time was correct.The ball wasn't out of bounds until it hit the person at the table which took about 1 sec not 2/10ths like the idiot announcers said
 
#5
#5
That was the quickest 1.1 seconds I've ever seen. Those refs may have just gotten themselves "un-invited" from next years tourney.
 
#6
#6
Actually if you are referring to the 1.1 they took off at the end it was the right call. The ball was touched in bounds and bounced high. The ball is not officially called dead until it touches something that is out of bounds.
 
#7
#7
It would have been a moot point if Mr. All-everything had hit a lay-up
 
#8
#8
Well, I didn't get the time thing, plus I thought Law was slightly grabbed on his layup - was it as much contact as A&M had on the foul on Anderson? Hmmm. But bottom line is that A&M couldn't grab a rebound when it counted - Memphis had about 4 off. rebounds on that last possession!
 
#9
#9
The only explanation is what Greg Gumbel just said . . . that the ball bounced on the court and the clock wouldn't have stopped until the ball actually hit out of bounds. It might not be as bad a call as it appeared.
 
#10
#10
Yeah... Basically a TAMU player threw the inbounds pass at 3.1 seconds, which got touched by a Memphis player and immediately bounced out of bounds. Couldn't have possibly been longer than .2 seconds, I think .1 would have been the best call. But they took 1.1 seconds off the clock, which is roughly the amount of extra time TAMU could have used in moving the ball in position for a better shot.

That was some horrid judgement, but TAMU still failed to grab the rebound in between 45,000 straight Memphis misses. TAMU lost the game at that point, that call probably just robbed them of any chance to win it back.
 
#11
#11
Disagree. It looked like the ball, after being deflected, bounced first inbounds before landing out of bounds. Thus, the time would start at 3.1 seconds and wouldn't stop until the ball hit after getting a complete bounce.
 
#13
#13
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
The time was correct.The ball wasn't out of bounds until it hit the person at the table which took about 1 sec not 2/10th like the idiot announcers said
Click to expand...
.2 would have been the correct call anything else is bull and show a lack of basketball knowledge
 
#14
#14
It was definitely more than 1/10th or 2/10ths of a sec. You can't even start and stop the clock that fast.
 
#17
#17
Vol67 said:
.2 would have been the correct call anything else is bull and show a lack of basketball knowledge
Click to expand...

No offense, but I think you are wrong. If you have it Tivo'd then you can go back and time it. Clock cannot stop until it touches something out of bounds.
 
#18
#18
Mullet Vol said:
No offense, but I think you are wrong. If you have it Tivo'd then you can go back and time it. Clock cannot stop until it touches something out of bounds.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that .2 seconds is an incredibly short amount of time.
 
#21
#21
Plus, Texas A&M still had to hit a 3 to tie it, not to win it.

Oops, scratch that, wrong game.
 
#22
#22
OrangeUTopia said:
I love the way CBS kept showing the replay over in slow motion ... idiots :crazy:
Click to expand...

I couldn't understand how the announcers kept saying 1.1 seconds was wrong. It's almost like people believe that when the ball crosses the plane of the out of bounds line then it is dead.
 
#23
#23
Mullet Vol said:
Actually if you are referring to the 1.1 they took off at the end it was the right call. The ball was touched in bounds and bounced high. The ball is not officially called dead until it touches something that is out of bounds.
Click to expand...
Yep.

vader said:
It would have been a moot point if Mr. All-everything had hit a lay-up
Click to expand...
Yep.

Vol67 said:
.2 would have been the correct call anything else is bull and show a lack of basketball knowledge
Click to expand...
How ironic.






I hope the next game in SA is just as exciting! :good!:
 
#24
#24
GAVol said:
The only explanation is what Greg Gumbel just said . . . that the ball bounced on the court and the clock wouldn't have stopped until the ball actually hit out of bounds. It might not be as bad a call as it appeared.
Click to expand...

but the ball has to touch a player before the clock is to start, right? I mean, I'm assuming it did.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top