Game 13: Seton Hall

  • 356 replies
  • 27536 views
Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #340 on: December 31, 2018, 05:09:47 PM »
The team will need to win tomorrow AND Saturday to get into the Top 25. 

To be sure. I am assuming with a win tomorrow a win Saturday is guaranteed. Even with a loss tomorrow I expect a handy win in DC

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #341 on: December 31, 2018, 07:00:19 PM »
Who said that?  That's interesting.

The league said it stupid, in their official press release explaining what happened at the end of the game: ""To be clear, the whistle in this case was not inadvertent."

https://www.app.com/story/sports/college/2018/12/31/big-east-seton-hall-st-johns/2451880002/

As opposed to your I'm-a-referee hot take: "the inadvertent whistle was blown."

No doubt this is another example of you ripping me a new one and making me look stupid, isn't it stupid. 

That you can turn on your computer without breaking a bone is confounding. Piss off now. See you in 2028, if I have the misfortune to live that long.


Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #342 on: December 31, 2018, 07:36:30 PM »
"However, if there had been an inadvertent whistle, NCAA rules would have awarded possession to Seton Hall (Rule 6-4.1.g.)."


Carmine

Is that correct...wouldn't it go to the possession arrow.
When you're a kid from New York and you do it in New York, that lasts forever!

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #343 on: December 31, 2018, 08:25:53 PM »
"However, if there had been an inadvertent whistle, NCAA rules would have awarded possession to Seton Hall (Rule 6-4.1.g.)."




Is that correct...wouldn't it go to the possession arrow.

That's not correct, so it doesn't matter. The official explanation is:

"the whistle in this case was not inadvertent."

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #344 on: December 31, 2018, 08:46:53 PM »
That's not correct, so it doesn't matter. The official explanation is:

"the whistle in this case was not inadvertent."

None of it matters anymore but their statement...even if it was an inadvertent whistle Seton Hall would’ve gotten it anyway is not correct.  At least as I read it.
When you're a kid from New York and you do it in New York, that lasts forever!

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #345 on: December 31, 2018, 09:01:39 PM »
The league said it stupid, in their official press release explaining what happened at the end of the game: ""To be clear, the whistle in this case was not inadvertent."

https://www.app.com/story/sports/college/2018/12/31/big-east-seton-hall-st-johns/2451880002/

As opposed to your I'm-a-referee hot take: "the inadvertent whistle was blown."

No doubt this is another example of you ripping me a new one and making me look stupid, isn't it stupid. 

That you can turn on your computer without breaking a bone is confounding. Piss off now. See you in 2028, if I have the misfortune to live that long.

Much of the leagues explanation is untruthful and not worth the paper it's printed on.

Don't believe me?  Here's your take on communications from Big East brass yesterday:

"and Stu Jackson is telling the truth - and of course he isn't"

Why don't you go look up what a "call" is?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 09:04:01 PM by carmineabbatiello »

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #346 on: December 31, 2018, 09:03:05 PM »
None of it matters anymore but their statement...even if it was an inadvertent whistle Seton Hall would’ve gotten it anyway is not correct.  At least as I read it.

What they said according to my understanding of the English language is that the call was wrong - it wasn't inadvertent - but if it wasn't wrong then SH would have had the ball if they were right. But they weren't, so who cares. They stated explicitly that there was not an inadvertent whistle and that but for the bad call the outcome would have been different. A more full explanation could not have been given: SJ lost because the referees blew it. I'm fine with that to the extent that it matters and it doesn't, but at least they owned it.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #347 on: December 31, 2018, 09:08:23 PM »
Much of the leagues explanation is untruthful and not worth the paper it's printed on.

Don't believe me?  Here's your take on communications from Big East brass yesterday:

"and Stu Jackson is telling the truth - and of course he isn't"

Stu Jackson lied yesterday, today he told the truth. You were stupid yesterday and you're stupid today, kudos on being consistent.

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #348 on: December 31, 2018, 09:38:13 PM »
"However, if there had been an inadvertent whistle, NCAA rules would have awarded possession to Seton Hall (Rule 6-4.1.g.)."


Carmine

Is that correct...wouldn't it go to the possession arrow.

Yes it is.

Following an inadvertent whistle, play would restart at the point of interruption to the team in control. Even though the ball had been knocked loose by LJ and there was no player control when the inadvertent whistle sounded, Seton Hall still maintained team control at that point and would be awarded a throw in at the out of bounds location closest to the ball.

If there is no team in control at the time of the inadvertent whistle, then the possession arrow is used.

Your question points to and exposes a large hole/inconsistency in the league/referee narrative.

The inbound was moved from the baseline to the sideline following the replay review.  Far as I can see there's only two valid explanations for that:

1) LJ is ruled out of bounds and Seton Hall is getting a resulting sideline throw-in.
or

2) An inadvertent whistle is ruled and Seton Hall gets the ball at the out of bounds spot nearest the ball when the whistle was blown - point of interruption. Result a sideline throw-in.

Which is it?  They can't have it both ways.

To claim that the referee suffered an "error in judgement" so we're just going to give the ball back to Seton Hall on the sideline because that's where the ball was is not supported in the rules and really smells like an inadvertent whistle.

Lucy still has some splainin to do. 
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 09:47:24 PM by carmineabbatiello »

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #349 on: December 31, 2018, 09:49:27 PM »
Stu Jackson lied yesterday, today he told the truth. You were stupid yesterday and you're stupid today, kudos on being consistent.

Good one. If it's of any consequence to you.  My feelings have been duly hurt.

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #350 on: December 31, 2018, 09:53:04 PM »
What they said according to my understanding of the English language is that the call was wrong - it wasn't inadvertent

Your understanding of the English language is strong, but your understanding of basketball and basketball officiating is weak.

I'm sorry you dragged me into it. You're bringing a pea shooter to a cannon fight.

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #351 on: December 31, 2018, 11:51:31 PM »
The most important question is did Tony D find a place to drop a duece?

His cheese game is on point.

I've been on pins and needles for days.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2018, 11:52:08 PM by SeattleJohnny »

SJUFAN

  • *****
  • 2280
Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #352 on: January 01, 2019, 12:59:53 AM »
BE has apologized for mistake that cost us the game. Awesome...

https://mobile.twitter.com/nypost_brazille/status/1079809697115525121?s=21

Here is what needs explaining, why was SH granted possession? The clock issue became an issue because a player touched the ball, that was a SJU player. If the claim is possession was in question then shouldn’t it be decided by the arrow? So is the “error in judgement” for the inadvertent whistle or for awarding SH possession of the ball? Either way we still should have won the game.

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #353 on: January 01, 2019, 02:07:09 AM »
Here is what needs explaining, why was SH granted possession?

Excellent point and the crux of the biscuit du jour.

If LJ was not ruled out of bounds AND you don't rule an inadvertent whistle, then what is the possible justification for a Seton Hall possession? Now moved to a more advantageous throw in spot on the sideline no less. There is none. Big flaw in the BE explanatory release.
 
There are instances where referees just stop the action then restart play with a throw in to the team in possession near where the ball was. Most commonly for injury or equipment problems or malfunction. Less commonly for things not specifically covered in the rules such as small children running on the court, earthquakes, riots in the stands or your partner having a stroke.
Typically the ref. tells the table "My timeout" or "My time" then you proceed once the issue is corrected.

That's not what happened Saturday. The stoppage was clearly to look at replay review to correct a timing issue and that's what occurred. Procedure for this is clearly covered in the rules:

a) After the mistake, such a mistake shall be corrected:
   1) During the first dead ball and before the ball is touched inbounds or out of bounds by a player other than a thrower-in.

This is why I'm adamant that the whistle was blown by mistake (not following the rule) and the official did not have a call to make. Inadvertent whistle was the way to go.
Quote

The clock issue became an issue because a player touched the ball, that was a SJU player. If the claim is possession was in question then shouldn’t it be decided by the arrow?
This part is a bit counter intuitive but SH still had team control even though LJ deflected the throw in to create a loose ball situation:

Art. 2.  A team shall be in control when:
      b) While a live ball is being passed between teammates
      c) When a player of that team has disposal of the ball for a throw-in.
Art. 3.  Team control shall continue until the ball is in flight during a try for goal, an opponent     secures control OR THE BALL BECOMES DEAD.

You only go to the arrow if neither team has team control.
Quote
So is the “error in judgement” for the inadvertent whistle or for awarding SH possession of the ball?
There is a lot of blame to be passed around in many areas on many levels.  The granddaddy of them all is the ref. not waiting till a dead ball to fix the timing issue. If not for this everything would have been fine. It's the stone that started the avalanche. 
Quote
Either way we still should have won the game.
Darn straight. We wuz robbed.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 04:19:16 AM by carmineabbatiello »

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #354 on: January 01, 2019, 12:12:39 PM »
Thanks Carmine.  The team control definition doesn’t make sense to me.  One would think the deflection would change it to loose ball with no team control.
When you're a kid from New York and you do it in New York, that lasts forever!

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #355 on: January 01, 2019, 12:37:09 PM »
Thanks Carmine.  The team control definition doesn’t make sense to me.  One would think the deflection would change it to loose ball with no team control.

Np.

I would like to thank all of you, Doc in particular, for allowing me to over indulge myself in rule discussion and analysis. Normally after I take the test, I don't open the rule book again until the following years test when I get new rule books and use the old ones for kindling. Probably part of the reason I'm a crappy ref. It was fun and helpful for me to open my books mid-season.

I've never had the chance to discuss rules to this extent with my JJ friends before and I go way back to the Beb days. Usually, I only get into this stuff with my fellow ref. friends at our double secret meetings where we drink absinthe and snort crushed oxy pills while inventing new and diabolical ways to screw teams over.

If it's ok with the board, I am putting the clock gate game behind me and moving on to the Golden Eagles.

I'm going back to only swinging at pitches in my wheelhouse which are:

1) Unwavering, blind support and reverence for Coach Mullin
2) Bad nicknames
3) Phil Greene adoration

Enjoy the game today fellas!

Re: Game 13: Seton Hall
« Reply #356 on: April 09, 2019, 12:24:21 AM »
Michael Stephens gets the final.