Question for the pack

MSUDAWGFAN

Senior
Apr 17, 2014
1,160
788
113
We all know what happened about the call on DD in the waning minutes of the game. I'm sitting here watching Gonzaga vs USC and the Gonzaga guy gets poked in the eye on the first half. USC marches down and scored and right away the officials blow the whistle to stop play.

Question is, why did they not go back and assess a flagrant 1 on USC for facial contact like they did against us? Is there a difference in men vs women's rules? Or was this just inept officiating today or yeserday?

Believe it or not, this is actually a serious question. I know the officiating yesterday was sorry, but I have watched thousands of men's games and only watched a few women's games and I have never seen a foul called after both teams have possessed the ball after the play in question.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,325
33,037
113
Why did they not go back and review the puck on Morgan William in the 1st quarter? Do they only enforce the rule at the end of the game? Or if the favored team would benefit?
 

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,407
309
83
Why did they not go back and review the puck on Morgan William in the 1st quarter? Do they only enforce the rule at the end of the game? Or if the favored team would benefit?

Referee discretion, I believe.
 

MSUDAWGFAN

Senior
Apr 17, 2014
1,160
788
113
So then how far can they go back? 5 minutes? It just seemed to me that there is a serious inconsistency. A call based on a previous play could have changed the way a team would have played, which could have totally changed the game.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,325
33,037
113
So the referee's are free to call the game by the rules only when they feel like it?
 

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,407
309
83
So then how far can they go back? 5 minutes? It just seemed to me that there is a serious inconsistency. A call based on a previous play could have changed the way a team would have played, which could have totally changed the game.

They can go back as far as the last dead ball. Exact wording from the rule book lasted below. The fact that they reviewed the call is completely within the rule book. Where they messed up, is the interpretation of the flagrant 1 rules in regards to incidental contact while making a play on the ball. DD was reacting to the pass that was thrown for Samuelson. The ball, however, was tipped by Teira and never got close to Samuelson. All of the shots that ESPN showed during the replay were close ups of the contact, in which you couldnt see the ball. Meaning, I think the refs thought the contact was non-action off-ball play and applied the flagrant 1 under that premise.... when, in fact, it should've NOT been applied due to incidental contact while DD was making a play on the ball that she thought was coming to Samuelson before Teira tipped it.

It should also be noted that I referred youth basketball in Starkville all through college, making me SPS's foremost authority on all rules interpretations. Calling 3 second and traveling violations on third graders fully prepared me for this moment**

After a call has been made, determine if a flagrant 1 or 2 personalfoul, a flagrant 2 contact technical foul, or a contact dead balltechnical foul occurred� When it is determined that a flagrant 2personal or flagrant 2 contact technical foul did not occur buta flagrant 1 personal foul or contact dead ball technical foul orcommon foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly�However, no other infractions may be penalized� When the reviewdiscloses, by indisputable evidence, that there was no contact, thefoul call shall be reversed with no foul charged�
a� When there is a foul called for contact, the officials, with aplausible reason, may review the severity of that foul during thedead ball period following the call� When the ball becomes live,there shall be no review of the made call�

  1. 2� When officials err and fail to observe the fouls according to11-2�1�d�1 (this shall not include a common foul) or a fight, they arepermitted to correct and penalize these infraction(s), with the use ofa monitor review, when the act occurs:
    1. a� When the game clock was stopped, it must be corrected:
      1� During the first dead ball after the clock was properly started�
    2. b� When the game clock was running, it must be corrected:
      1� During the first dead ball after the clock was properly stopped;or
      2� Before the second live ball when the ball became dead after asuccessful goal but the clock continued to run�
 

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,407
309
83
So the referee's are free to call the game by the rules only when they feel like it?

Reviews are at their discretion and can also be prompted by a coach. If Geno (and he may have in this case) promoted them for a review(totally legal inside of 2 minutes in the 4th quarter), then the review must turn up a flagrant 1 or Geno would've been charged a timeout (similar to football).

ETA: Rule book can be downloaded here for free. http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...ens-basketball-rules-and-interpretations.aspx
 
Last edited:

MSUDAWGFAN

Senior
Apr 17, 2014
1,160
788
113
Reviews are at their discandretion and can also be prompted by a coach. If Geno (and he may have in this case) promoted them for a review(totally legal inside of 2 minutes in the 4th quarter), then the review must turn up a flagrant 1 or Geno would've been charged a timeout (similar to football).

ETA: Rule book can be downloaded here for free. http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4...ens-basketball-rules-and-interpretations.aspx

So in the Gonzaga case, they couldn't review the contact because it wasn't in the last 2 minutes of the game?

Are men's rules different than women's rules?
 

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,407
309
83
So in the Gonzaga case, they couldn't review the contact because it wasn't in the last 2 minutes of the game?

Are men's rules different than women's rules?

The rules may be different, but incidental contact is not a flagrant 1. Przemek got hit accidentally during the course of game play. DDs contact was ruled intentional during the review, which was totally 17ING incorrect.

Ill state it again.... cause it's the key. The review was legit. The flagrant 1 interpretation is where they 17ed up.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,325
33,037
113
It's a ******** rule, and the application of it is haphazard at best, and gives every appearance of being biased last night. Fortunately, Itty Bitty came up with 2 huge plays in the last 13 seconds to make it moot.
 

missouridawg

Junior
Oct 6, 2009
9,407
309
83
It's a ******** rule, and the application of it is haphazard at best, and gives every appearance of being biased last night. Fortunately, Itty Bitty came up with 2 huge plays in the last 13 seconds to make it moot.

Youre free to your own opinion on the rule. I think the review rules are fine. Some fine tuning of referee common sense is what's needed here. They had no evidence that DDs contact was intentional, but ruled it that way. A complete breakdown of the "unequivocal video evidence" to overturn language.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,325
33,037
113
I don't think anyone's questioning whether the review was legal. It was clearly within the rules. And I agree that the interpretation was clearly wrong. But if you're going to review a call in the last minute of the game, you damn well need to review the call in the 1st quarter.
 

patdog

Heisman
May 28, 2007
61,325
33,037
113
A complete breakdown of the "unequivocal video evidence" to overturn language.
Unfortunately, the "unequivocal video evidence" rule is routinely ignored. By the rules, any call that can't be overturned (or in this case made) in less than a minute must stand as called originally. Yet, we see reviews take close to 5 minutes all the time.
 

MSUDAWGFAN

Senior
Apr 17, 2014
1,160
788
113
I don't think anyone's questioning whether the review was legal. It was clearly within the rules. And I agree that the interpretation was clearly wrong. But if you're going to review a call in the last minute of the game, you damn well need to review the call in the 1st quarter.

I agree with this.

Question answered. I understand that the difference was that even though both sets of contact were incidental and a play on the ball, that the refs determined that DD was intentional and not a play on the ball. I thought it was a play on the ball.
 
Maroon and White

Latest

  1. 01 Maroon and White "I started something I didn't finish": Mississippi State QB Kamario Taylor joins Sports Center to talk 2027 return
  2. 02 Maroon and White Basketball Bulldogs prepare to level up competition, starting with Xavier in neutral site meeting
  3. 03 Maroon and White Football Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Who carries the load?
  4. 04 Maroon and White Football Mississippi State Week 11 Preview: Run vs. Run
  5. 05 Maroon and White Basketball Mississippi State 79-57 Troy: Bulldogs build big early lead in home win over Trojans