Comments on: Deconstructing the Butler vs. Xavier Finish…

By: Just a Ref

Just a Ref — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:37:50 +0000

Re this shi**y end to a game between two good teams, the only thing that matters is whether it the correct call, not whether it’s “fair and equitable.” I understand the desire to address whether X got the short end or not, but those are debates for fans. The officials’ job is to get it right based on the rule book.

As an official, believe me when I say that those three guys are no happier with Mr. Twitchyfinger than any X fan.

By: wickers

wickers — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:51:13 +0000

I’m a Butler fan and I think the decision was horrible. When Butler tracked the ball down in the backcourt both teams are looking at the clock..decisions are made based on the time on the clock. How would Butler have felt had they simply held the ball until the 1second mark…hit the shot to apparently win the game and then have the refs review the play to say there was infact no time on the clock when you subtract the 1+ second that the clock was stopped. We would have thrown a fit. Therefore, they should not have corrected the error and simply given Xavier the 1.2 seconds to see if they could win the game. If the play is not stopped at the time of the timing error, I don’t think it can be fairly corrected later. Horrible ending to a great game at Hinkle.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:35:43 +0000

It’s a great argument about a coach and a program on the edge……………….

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:16:55 +0000

In reply to Scott. You don't think he saw that on the replays? Maybe he won't do anything about it, but I'd find it hard to believe he would have missed that.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:13:15 +0000

“Excellent point, Scott. I’m sure Chris Mack noticed that as well.”

No I doubt he did. Which is part of the problem.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:00:22 +0000

In reply to Scott. Excellent point, Scott. I'm sure Chris Mack noticed that as well.

By: Ray Mueller

Ray Mueller — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:51:39 +0000

Thank you Jack for your observation about Knight and Musberger calling for ADDING time when the question was how much time should be TAKEN OFF because of the stoppage. I called this to the attention of ESPN but I doubt if they will even be admonished. Also, in that last wild sequence, a foul should have been called on a Xavier player for undercutting in the backcourt just before the clock stoppage (for whatever reason) and a foul should have been called on a Butler player who knocked down an opponent by backing into him in the lane just before the loose ball got to the player who hit the winning basket. This situation reeked of incompetence by all involved.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:36:08 +0000

If you really want to see something that needs to be corrected watch Jordan Crawford sit on the baseline and watch for four seconds instead of playing defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfRc_c691es

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:31:18 +0000

The game was poorly officiated on both ends but was fairly consistent. They are a pretty experienced Big Ten crew. Someone said on another blog that the timekeeper probably thought it was going to be a backcourt violation so he was a little touchy on the timer which could be considered getting “homered”. Lots of soft calls the first half, Xavier was in the bonus pretty early but they let them play in the second half. In all fairness, they made the call with what they had to work with, within the rules. In fairness, should they have let Xavier have their shot with 1.2 seconds left, sure. Xavier had a great crowd for a road game and it was one of the more exciting games I have seen in a long time. Emotions run strong during a game like this but its up to the coach to lead by example. Coach Mack did a poor job of keeping his players under control. If it wasn’t for some team mangers and asst. coaches, Holloway was going after the time keeper and into the stands. Not acceptable behavior from a coach or a player. Something very interesting when compared to the Butler coach. It appeared someone threw an object at one of the referees from the student stands, again, not acceptable behavior but the Butler coach saw it, and during play, picked it up and walked to the student section and admonished them.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:49:36 +0000

Unfortunately the officials acted in the only way the rules would allow them to. Direct knowledge of a clock stoppage, reviewing the video with a stop watch, comparing the results negates the final 1.2 seconds that appeared to remain left in the game. What I find remarkable is the stupidity of Bobby Knight and Brent Musberger. They continued to question “how much time the officials would be ADDING to the clock due to the freeze or stoppage at 14.7 while the officials were reviewing the video.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:22:15 +0000

While I agree that the NCAA needs to clarify this issue, I tend to agree with Scott here. I don’t think it likely that Hayward had a strong sense of the clock when he got hold of the ball and I strongly disagree with the statement that “a group of officials removed any possibility for Xavier to win or lose on their own merits”. Even if the officials had decided to leave 1.2 seconds on the clock after the review (which would have been unfair to Butler and the wrong call), Xavier’s best chance at winning or losing the game on their own merits was to get ahold of the loose ball in the endgame scenario, not a desperation shot at the buzzer.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:16:13 +0000

I understand your point, but you could also make the opposite argument in the reverse situation. So I guess the real question is where does it end ? I have no idea.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:04:34 +0000

In reply to Scott.

I saw one dribble baseline and a slight duck-under to get to the rim, so from my view he was 6-8 feet from the basket when he received the ball.

I’ll grant you that in a broken play situation such as this it’s harder for players to keep mental or visual track of the time remaining. But I also know that players are usually pretty good about having a general sense as to the amount of time left. I think Hayward is particularly keen in this respect. In other situations where a play is run to shoot in the 3.0-5.0 second range, well, I’ve already outlined that problem (and usually the player shooting will know exactly what the clock says when he makes his move).

Irrespective, I hope the NCAA provides a point of clarification on this next season b/c I doubt they contemplated this problem when they wrote the rule.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:54:05 +0000

“Again, would Hayward have taken the time to dribble and drive to the rim if he thought there was under a second left; or would he have done something quickly like take a quick runner from 6-8 feet?”

He picked himself up off the floor, dribbled once and got the rim as fast as possible, he didn’t have any idea how much time was left. Take a six to eight foot runner ? He was almost right under the basket. If you think they know to the second the exact time left you are nuts. How many times have you seen a guy jack up a half courter with three full seconds left ?

I understand where you are coming from, in rare cases you indeed might be right, but I think a mandated technology improvement is the ultimate answer.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:26:40 +0000

In reply to Scott.

Scott, this scenario already invites intentional clock stoppage by the operator. If he “accidentally” stops it for a couple of seconds on the last play, knowing fully well that most teams don’t wait until 2.0 to shoot (more likely 3.0-5.0), then if the shot goes down, there will be a time review and the opponent won’t have anything left to get a final shot up (same as yesterday). There’s a presumption of good faith operation of the score/time, but crooked behavior is encouraged both ways (this can be solved with technology, where official whistles are tied to the clock).

I said it above, but Butler was the beneficiary of additional time in that they thought they had 1.2 extra seconds than they actually had. Players react differently given the time on the clock, and a 1 second difference at the end of a game is huge when it comes to their behavior. Again, would Hayward have taken the time to dribble and drive to the rim if he thought there was under a second left; or would he have done something quickly like take a quick runner from 6-8 feet? I understand you’re saying that they didn’t actually get any “extra” time, but they got the perception and sense that they had more time, which is often just as important when it comes to their behavior.

Thanks for the comment.