bonwich Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 All I can find is a 2006 rulebook, and as far as I can tell, a called shot clock violation is not a "correctable error." If that's the case, at very least, today's refs should be suspended. (Actually, they should be retired, but the only tangible thing we can get them on is calling a rule that doesn't exist.) In any event, we need to know the name of the hair-dye guy, and we need to use it for all 40 minutes every time he steps on the court for the rest of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG BILL FAN Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 All I can find is a 2006 rulebook, and as far as I can tell, a called shot clock violation is not a "correctable error." If that's the case, at very least, today's refs should be suspended. (Actually, they should be retired, but the only tangible thing we can get them on is calling a rule that doesn't exist.) In any event, we need to know the name of the hair-dye guy, and we need to use it for all 40 minutes every time he steps on the court for the rest of the year. I was thinking the same thing. The officiating was nothing short of brutal. The non travel call really hurt. Did anyone hear Earl and Rammer's thoughts on the officiating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majerus Magic Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I was thinking the same thing. The officiating was nothing short of brutal. The non travel call really hurt. Did anyone hear Earl and Rammer's thoughts on the officiating? "The state of this officiating is worse than the U.S. economy" -Rammer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken75 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 "The state of this officiating is worse than the U.S. economy" -Rammer I can seriously, and in good conscience, say that tonight's game against Dayton was the worse officiated game I have ever seen. Tommie lost 4 pts. due to terrible calls - and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Officiating changed the outcome of this game - my only rationale is that the A-10 want their top ranked team to move upwards - St.Louis is a non-factor this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 The Atlantic 10 so called refs have hated slu since we entered the conference. They probably don't like the location of the school ie not on the east coast. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 All agreed, but let's stay on point here: Is a miscalled shot clock violation a "correctable" mistake? I'm pretty sure it isn't -- and if it isn't, those officials should be suspended by the NCAA. (Tangential note: The NBA is about to replay the last 51 seconds of a game because Shaq was mistakenly disqualified because it was thought he fouled out.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Joe Demayo, Kevin O'Connell, Ray Perone were the officials send them hate mail(I do not condone this and am not responsible for anyone who does) They were like hookers they blew everything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp18 Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Joe Demayo, Kevin O'Connell, Ray Perone were the officials send them hate mail(I do not condone this and am not responsible for anyone who does) They were like hookers they blew everything Haha. Great line. I also questioned the shot clock violation being a reviewable at the time. Oh well. When it rains, it pours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 i am pretty sure the older guy is demayo. and he is the defintion of a bad ref. too old to get in position. loves to make the big call and call over his fellow officials. the other two clowns were no better one of them called the charge on tommie that i was certain was going to be a foul and a conventional 3 point play, and then the other called the travel on a tommie layup. that was 5 points right there that would have won the game. but i now cringe when i see demayo walk out. horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huzzah Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 All agreed, but let's stay on point here: Is a miscalled shot clock violation a "correctable" mistake? I'm pretty sure it isn't -- and if it isn't, those officials should be suspended by the NCAA. (Tangential note: The NBA is about to replay the last 51 seconds of a game because Shaq was mistakenly disqualified because it was thought he fouled out.) I don't have a current rule book, but I was wondering if it was a straight and simple shot clock violation. The one ref called a shot clock violation, but the shot clock violation signal did not go off, as I recall. The refs then added time to the clock and play resumed. Maybe the clock was faulty. The refs were so bad it was impossible to tell what really happened and there was no public announcement. Maybe the refs added time to allow them to over rule reversal of the shot clock call. Tom T did not cover this and indicated his blog is down, but tomorrow it may be possible to quiz him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 This doesn't apply to the shot-clock call and review, but since it pertains to officiating, I'll put it here. I perused the box score and saw that Dayton made 19 free throws, while SLU attempted only 17 -- in a game in which the trailing team fouled to extend the game only a couple of times or three, if I recall correctly. Typically, if a team can hit more free throws than their opponents attempt, they win the game. However, it's also typical for the home team to be that team. Unfortunately, though, I've seen far too often when the Bills are called for more fouls at home than the visiting team. I didn't see the game, but I doubt that it was a case that Dayton players weren't making contact with the Billiken players. Rather, I think the officials had a predisposition to favor Dayton, the ranked team. I spent most of the game on a "real-time" chat site with Dayton fans, and when it looked like SLU could win the game, a Dayton fan asked me, "Don't you want 3 or 4 teams from the conference in the Tournament?" as if Dayton's losing to SLU on the Billikens' home court would automatically eliminate Dayton's chances of making the NCAA Tournament! What an idea -- let's have 10 conference teams lie down and roll over whenever they play one of the four perceived top teams . But since the teams and coaches of those teams won't do that, perhaps the league has instructed officials to make sure the perceived top teams have every opportunity to dominate the league and enhance the chances that four conference teams get in -- that is more money for the conference schools to split, isn't it? I don't really like conspiracy-theory thinking, but I've seen the Bills get the short end of the officiating stick for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I wouldn't doubt that its going down like that thicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 All agreed, but let's stay on point here: Is a miscalled shot clock violation a "correctable" mistake? I'm pretty sure it isn't -- and if it isn't, those officials should be suspended by the NCAA. (Tangential note: The NBA is about to replay the last 51 seconds of a game because Shaq was mistakenly disqualified because it was thought he fouled out.) Joe, at least according to this article, a shot clock violation is NOT reviewable - at least it wasn't in 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15775839/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2007/200...tball_rules.pdf search correctable errors and it should be the second result It does not say that shot clock is reviewable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Ithere was no public announcement. that would assume that guy phillips would know what was going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 All I can find is a 2006 rulebook, and as far as I can tell, a called shot clock violation is not a "correctable error." If that's the case, at very least, today's refs should be suspended. (Actually, they should be retired, but the only tangible thing we can get them on is calling a rule that doesn't exist.) In any event, we need to know the name of the hair-dye guy, and we need to use it for all 40 minutes every time he steps on the court for the rest of the year. At the sake of sounding ignorant (but I didn't see or listen to the game), what exactly happened? Aside from overall bad officiating, what were the sequence of events that are bringing this rule into question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 There was nine seconds left and Roberts took a shot with the shot clock running down. The ball "grazed"the rim (it did hit the rim) and SLU and UD scrummed for the rebound. UD came up with it and took a quick shot and missed. However, the Ref blew the whistle while the second shot was being taken, because he thought it was a shot clock violation. After review, they gave the ball back to Dayton, even though the second shot missed. With nine seconds left, maybe SLU gets a basket to win the game. The officiating was quite bad. I sat with a "neutral observer" who leaned over and said sarcastically, "Geez, do you think the new Arena will help SLU get a few more home court calls? All 50-50 calls have gone Dayton's way." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 speaking of 50/50 calls, i had thought that the presense of rickma would have gotten the zebra's on our side more. doesnt appear we are getting any more calls than before though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 speaking of 50/50 calls, i had thought that the presense of rickma would have gotten the zebra's on our side more. doesnt appear we are getting any more calls than before though. Christ Roy, are you happy with anything? We get it, you expected more from Rick this season (and arguably, we have gotten more since he did sign 5 recruits) and so did a lot of us. But SLU hasn't exactly turned into New Jersey Tech. It seems every single post from you is negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 There was nine seconds left and Roberts took a shot with the shot clock running down. The ball "grazed"the rim (it did hit the rim) and SLU and UD scrummed for the rebound. UD came up with it and took a quick shot and missed. However, the Ref blew the whistle while the second shot was being taken, because he thought it was a shot clock violation. After review, they gave the ball back to Dayton, even though the second shot missed. With nine seconds left, maybe SLU gets a basket to win the game. The officiating was quite bad. I sat with a "neutral observer" who leaned over and said sarcastically, "Geez, do you think the new Arena will help SLU get a few more home court calls? All 50-50 calls have gone Dayton's way." So Dayton got it back with a full nine seconds remaining and missed one more shot after the controversial call? I take it on that second shot after Roberts' rim grazer, SLU got the rebound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Christ Roy, are you happy with anything? We get it, you expected more from Rick this season (and arguably, we have gotten more since he did sign 5 recruits) and so did a lot of us. But SLU hasn't exactly turned into New Jersey Tech. It seems every single post from you is negative. that was an observation not a dig. there is nothing rickma can do about that. i guess you missed my post this morning when i answered the question about rickma vs soderberg? i thought that was positive. in my billiken world there is less to be positive about these days imo considering what my expectations were coming into this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 that was an observation not a dig. there is nothing rickma can do about that. i guess you missed my post this morning when i answered the question about rickma vs soderberg? i thought that was positive. in my billiken world there is less to be positive about these days imo considering what my expectations were coming into this season. The reply about rickma v. soderberg was a "i'll take majerus, but..." Why is there less to be positive about? Considering only this year is a very short-term outlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Yep Wow, that's an unreal way to end regulation. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the refs have orders to protect the top handful of teams in the conference. It's probably best that I wasn't there to see it. Gus and his security staff, along with the police on duty at Scottrade, would certainly have been involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 TomT was kind enough to research the rules for me on his blog. Apparently it was a reviewable call -- however, I've added a part 2, because it still appeared to me as though we should have gotten the ball back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.