What happened to this ref

[SubGod22]

If it's a foul it's a foul. I don't care how much, or little, time is on the clock. If you let a foul go because there's only a couple of seconds left, the official has dictated the outcome and not the players.

[DUBulldog]

If it's a foul it's a foul. I don't care how much, or little, time is on the clock. If you let a foul go because there's only a couple of seconds left, the official has dictated the outcome and not the players.

I'm not sure if you're refering to my post or not, but in the case I was describing, the "foul", if there was one, was extremely ticky tack......and it clearly came after the buzzer.

So, when you say you don't care how much or little time is on the clock, does that also extend to fouls called after the buzzer?

It was a clear enough screw-up that the guy never reffed in the MVC again.

[SubGod22]

If it's a foul it's a foul. I don't care how much, or little, time is on the clock. If you let a foul go because there's only a couple of seconds left, the official has dictated the outcome and not the players.

I'm not sure if you're refering to my post or not, but in the case I was describing, the "foul", if there was one, was extremely ticky tack......and it clearly came after the buzzer.

So, when you say you don't care how much or little time is on the clock, does that also extend to fouls called after the buzzer?

It was a clear enough screw-up that the guy never reffed in the MVC again.

Mine was in response to whoever posted just before my reply.

[DUBulldog]

If it's a foul it's a foul. I don't care how much, or little, time is on the clock. If you let a foul go because there's only a couple of seconds left, the official has dictated the outcome and not the players.

I'm not sure if you're refering to my post or not, but in the case I was describing, the "foul", if there was one, was extremely ticky tack......and it clearly came after the buzzer.

So, when you say you don't care how much or little time is on the clock, does that also extend to fouls called after the buzzer?

It was a clear enough screw-up that the guy never reffed in the MVC again.

Mine was in response to whoever posted just before my reply.

Got it....I had stopped reading his post about halfway through, so didn't realize you were responding to him.

[SubGod22]

I'm not totally familiar with your case though. From my understanding, replay equipment isn't to be used to determine if a foul was committed. They can use it to go back and look at an elbow/punch to see if there was a certain intent or if it were a "normal" type of occurance. The only thing I could think of was to see if it happened before the horn. I'm not sure if that's acceptable or not according to the rules.

[DUBulldog]

I'm not totally familiar with your case though. From my understanding, replay equipment isn't to be used to determine if a foul was committed. They can use it to go back and look at an elbow/punch to see if there was a certain intent or if it were a "normal" type of occurance. The only thing I could think of was to see if it happened before the horn. I'm not sure if that's acceptable or not according to the rules.

I'm not positive, but I think they can use replay to determine whether a foul occured before or after the horn, but obviously not to determine if there was a foul. I've seen refs call a foul in the last seconds, and then go to the replay to determine how much time should still be on the clock. Given that, if they determined that the foul was after the clock ran out, I would think they would wipe out the foul.

I distinctly remember that when they showed the replay on the news that night, and slowed it down; you could clearly hear the buzzer go off before any of the scrambling players had even reached the ball....and the foul was called as three or four players fought for the loose ball.

[troutangler]

The stupidity in this thread is downright hilarious.

"So and so is terrible both ways"

Translation: Not enough calls go my team's way, so we must be getting screwed.

These guys aren't doing D1 because of pure luck. You may not like some calls they make, but they aren't incompetent.

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

The stupidity in this thread is downright hilarious.

"So and so is terrible both ways"

Translation: Not enough calls go my team's way, so we must be getting screwed.

These guys aren't doing D1 because of pure luck. You may not like some calls they make, but they aren't incompetent.

I think they are slightly more competent than what you would see in HS or YMCA type games but most refs below the NBA/FIBA level are just terribly inconsistent and oftentimes just wrong.

[SubGod22]

The stupidity in this thread is downright hilarious.

"So and so is terrible both ways"

Translation: Not enough calls go my team's way, so we must be getting screwed.

These guys aren't doing D1 because of pure luck. You may not like some calls they make, but they aren't incompetent.

I think they are slightly more competent than what you would see in HS or YMCA type games but most refs below the NBA/FIBA level are just terribly inconsistent and oftentimes just wrong.

Did you just use NBA refs as the standard of greatness?

[DoubleJayAlum]

The stupidity in this thread is downright hilarious.

"So and so is terrible both ways"

Translation: Not enough calls go my team's way, so we must be getting screwed.

These guys aren't doing D1 because of pure luck. You may not like some calls they make, but they aren't incompetent.

I think it is fair to say that some officials are not as good as other, just like it is fair to say that some officials are better than others. Some analysis will be colored by homerism, but I think when evaluating refs, there are times when you can say that ref X had a horrible night. One night is not an adequate sample size, but it may be all that some have seen.