So, if you can't see the player verbally asking for a timeout, then how do you know who is asking for the timeout? Would you grant one to a waterboy? This really makes no sense.
Really? Did you not read the entire post? I said once you hear the timeout,and then determine possession, you grant the timeout. I feel it's pretty safe to assume the guy right in front of me, where the screaming of a t/o is coming from, who has the ball, is the guy calling for the t/o. Though I guess it could be the water boy. And the timeout doesn't have to come from the player with possession. It can come from any player. As long as possession is obtained.
I have gone back and watched the replay several more times, since I have the game recorded. In slow motion, in several angles, it doesn't even look like he verbally calls the TO until he turns around again and motions for it. By that time, he has already moved both feet without dribbling the ball.
Besides, if he called for the timeout when he first caught the ball, why would he even turn around and try to advance it?
Maybe because of the lag time of the whistle? Maybe he didn't hear the whistle and felt the official wasn't going to give the timeout? Possible, right?
Unlikely, right?
Plus, I watched the replay in slow motion, from 2 different angles, one showing his face as he catches the ball. It didn't appear that he said anything at all. Instead, he caught the ball, turned around to advance it, moved both feet, immediately saw a UK defender, then turned back around after both feet had moved (without dribbling) and verbally called for the timeout while subsequently motioning for the timeout. That's a travel.
I think that is allowed in the Women's game and the NBA. Not in the men's game!
Yup. That intentional foul was worse than the non travel call IMO.
I thought a player is no longer allowed to call time out when his feet are not on the floor?
Why is it unlikely? There were 20,000 people in the ******* building.
Why are you so ******** hung up on this call? It didn't effect the game. It was a very close call. Pretty much simultaneous. If the roles were reversed, you'd be arguing the exact opposite. He catches the ball. Comes down. Moves his left foot. Seems to gesture for a timeout at the exact same time he begins to move his right foot. And you want a trvel called there? In a game of this magnitude? Yeah. ok.
You cannot call a TO if in the air and your momentum is carrying you OOB, or into the back court. This wasn't the case in this situation.
Not hung up on it at all. I just wish that for once, you could put away your UK boner and be objective when it involves UK. You aren't and you can't. Somebody says something good about UK, you have to play devil's advocate. UNC player traveled, you - nah, it was bang bang. Bam gets called for a ticky tack while jockeying for position, you - good call. You're incapable of being objective and it's your job to be objective. You're an official!
Also, pointing out that there's 20k fans does not help your argument that he verbally called for a timeout. Especially since he wasn't even looking at the official. Unless of course, Roger Ayers is a Jedi.
It ain't even worth it with you. I've been more than objective about UK. And you ******* know this. Take your ******* clown/pony show somewhere else. Hell a good portion of your ******** fans feel it was a bang-bang call. SOme of your own don't it even feel it was a travel. But since I'm an IU fan, I can't be objective. Yeah, whatever dude.
It was a very, very close play. Had a travel been called, I would've been fine with it. It was that close. But IMO, it wasn't a CLEAR and DISTINCTIVE travel. Therefore, in that situation, I felt it was a good NO call. Take that how you wish. I dont really give two ***** to be honest.
So, you're saying it could be a travel but that it's not definitively not a travel? Just want to be sure.
Really, dude? I've said from the beginning that it was a bang-bang call. It was close. NO, I do not think it was a travel. I wouldn't have called it. Why? Because I feel it happened simultaneous. Now, could i see why a travel could get called there? Sure I do. It looked funky. So in that sense, I could see why it could be called, and really wouldn't have an issue with it, had it been.
Jesus ******* Christ.
I think you would have called it if it wouldn't have been UK.
Yeah, you're right. I would have. Because I've never defended a bad call against UK. Or never defended a call that went in UK's favor.; see technical vs Roy thoughts. You got me man. You got me.
I could say the same thing. If that were UK, you'd argue to the absolute end of time it wasn't a walk.
I'm looking at this as an official. As if I were on the floor. And I wouldn't have called that a travel simply because I didn't think enough was there to warrant that call. Take that as you wish.
Like I said, if it were UK, you'd argue to the end of time it wasn't a walk. And if I wasn't an IU fan, and you only knew me as a CBB official, you wouldn't question my thoughts so adamantly. So before you question someone's abilty to be objective, you might want to check your own(ability).
No I wouldn't, because that sir, was a walk.
You being an IU fan has little to do with it. You just aren't objective when it comes to UK. Just look at your post history and it paints the picture.
He verbally calls timeout also. The official is right there. No official is going to call a walk in that situation and I'm fine with that. It has no bearing on the game at all. Looking at it without my blue glasses, it would be pretty sad for THAT game to end on a call when everyone in the world knows he was trying to call TO as quickly as he could. If it was black and white then Id say yes, you are right but it's not. It's in that Gray area and it was the right call to award the TO. Any officiating association in the world would agree. It was just the right call to make. The official didn't split hairs and made the right call. A TO can be by signal or verbal communication.
I've officiated a long time in football and basketball, both at the high school and collegiate levels, and part of my pregame includes...."Stay away from bang bangs and use common sense". The best officials are the ones who can work in that gray area and excel with "game sense".
Too close to make that kind of call in any game, much less a game like that. It would've been a shame to end a game like that on that call. Then, everyone would argue the other side had it been called and rightfully so. It's too close to make. Some people just don't understand I guess.
To explain that, the official can see or hear the request for the timeout but when it's a clock situation, they go by when the TO was granted. No, there is that human element with a small delay from when the TO was seen/heard and when it was actually granted. I assume that would be the reason for the difference in timing. There would be a small gap in time from when the TO is requested to when it is granted.
What about the travel by Berry with 28 seconds left? absolute clear travel and the refs just let it go. Thank god he missed and we got the rebound. He gathered the ball then made 3 steps.
Notice how the refs didnt call that when UK was down 2 with 26 seconds left....... but the refs try to help UNC get a last second shot to tie. Its pretty clear that they were trying to give UNC that little push.
Notice how the refs didnt call that when UK was down 2 with 26 seconds left....... but the refs try to help UNC get a last second shot to tie. Its pretty clear that they were trying to give UNC that little push.
Actually it was an imaginary walk, approved by the NCAA, and backed by the officiating crew.
This is where you lose credibility to me, the magnitude of a game should never determine when to make the right call. Correct calls should be made no matter if it's the first 30 seconds or last 3 seconds of a game, officials should either grow a pair or get another career.
The IU dude doesn't care but goes on a profanity filled rant and even continues in another post. Someone needs to take a chill pill and some have some milk and cookies.
Oh don't do that. The Borden guy will just tell us how he's a ref, iu fan & knows it all.
I would agree with you if the player had not looked toward the front court and subsequently made a move toward the front court. To award the timeout. in that case, seems to go against the spirit of the game. It was a bailout. Had the player moved his pivot while clearly trying to establish possession, I could see your point.
I don't buy the idea that the player signaled for a TO and was fearful that the ref didn't grant it and then made a move to advance the ball. His primary move was not to call a TO in this case. It was to advance the ball and if he was covered, then call the TO. I honestly can't see it any other way based on the video.
BTW, it even appears to me that he was facing the backcourt when he was in the air but came down more facing the sideline, indicating to me that he was already in the process of turning to run upcourt.
The thing that drives me crazy about instant replay in time related situations is they don't account for human reaction time. They always put the time in the cock to the exact moment a player signals timeout or the exact time a player goes out of bounds. At no other time in the game does the clock stop the exact tenths of a second something happens.
It sure gave me flashbacks to the 1972 USA-Russia Olympic game where they kept putting time on the clock until Russia pulled out the victory.
After the NCAA read your post, they issued the following:
"In a review of the 2012 National Championship game between the University of Kentucky and the Kansas Jayhawks, it was determined that Kansas lost because "they ran out of time" when making a dramatic comeback. Analysis of game film revealed that the clock operator on numerous times allowed the clock to run after play had been stopped. We have determined that almost 3 minutes had been taken away from game play by these errors.
Therefore, in the interest of fair play and an adherence to the rules, the NCAA has proposed that in all future games, if the officials believe that one team "ran out of time" and was unable to win the game, the officials may go back and review the clock stoppages for the entire half to determine if additional time should be added to the clock. "
It's not necessarily true that they get to look to see if the call was incorrect. That is dictated by the situation and there are many situations that are not reviewable. In this case, they could only go to see WHEN the timeout was called by the ref (something they blew BTW since they gave the timeout at the time that the player called it and not when it was signaled by the ref) but they could not look to see if the timeout should have been allowed or if a walk should have been called.
Who said anything about not seeing who is asking for the timeout? I didn't. I just said it can be called verbally but that doesn't mean you don't know who is calling it either. As an official, alot of times coaches will tell you that they want a TO prior to a situation. Like..."We're going to call a TO as soon as we inbound the ball" or "If we make this FT, I want a TO". So, the official is aware that it's coming and can grant it ASAP.
I just disagree. I don't think he makes a move up court. Too quick to say he makes a move, maybe a jerk reaction but not a basketball move at all. Also, if you look at the other UNC player, he is calling TO before the ball even gets there. He is signaling for a TO before the ball even reaches the UNC player. We don't know but Williams may have told the officials he was going to call a TO as soon as the ball was inbounded. I imagine he did or one of the assistants did to make the officials aware that it was coming. Even as the biggest UK fan, I have no problem with this no call. It was great 'game sense' for the official to grant this TO and while the UK fan in me would have loved to have seen it called, I completely agree with a no call. If I was watching say ... Montana vs North Dakota and it was as good of a game as this one was, I'd be pissed if it ended on a controversial traveling call when it was obvious that they were trying to call TO. I think anyone would agree with that and that's why it was the right call. The best officials don't split hairs and can get calls right in gray situations and this is both. It was the correct call.
Watching the other UNC player calling TO before the ball even reaches his team mate should put this to rest.
How about the travel call on WG at about 10:20 in the first? Rewatching it today, I'm not all that sure that he walked. Looks like he made motions with his body before he ever got both feet on the ground. Hard to tell if he shuffled immediately upon landing but it looked weird for sure. I said that to say this...travels can happen in a split second and are very difficult calls to make real time. Agree or disagree with the call, most of them are understandable calls.
You are correct. The situation, the speed of the event, etc. Go Cats!!