Bad Officiating

[XLFan]

Did anyone else think the officiating was particularly bad last night? Case in point, 17 fouls were called in the first six minutes of the second half. Xavier was already in the bonus after the first four minutes! I want Xavier to win every game, but my heart really went out to Richmond.

Also, did anyone see the UCLA/Cal highlights? Talk about poor officiating. UCLA was handed the game because of:

1. The no foul call on UCLA, which led to a Cal turnover with under a minute to play.

and

2. The winning shot taken by Shipp, clearly went over the top of the backboard, which was a turnover, no basket.

I guess poor officiating happens outside the A-10 as well.

[finalfourorbust]

I didn't think all of the fouls that were called in the 2nd half were a fault of the officials. I think it was a result of the ineptness of Richmonds defense when Xavier started pounding the ball inside. I think Richmond committed every one of those 17 fouls. I wasn't too happy with the way the charges and blocking fouls were called, but, I never am. As long as I've been watching basketball that is the one call that is still a constant mystery to me. The fouls on Richmond were the result of them being one step slow to react to Xaviers moves in almost every case.

[LA Muskie]

The officiating wasn't bad at all yesterday. The fouls were called because we were executing a very determined effort to get the ball in the paint. If I were a Richmond fan I'd probably be upset by the overall number of foul calls, but if I then watched the game I'd see that very few, if any, were questionable. If anything, the refs called several ticky-tack fouls on us to try to even things out a bit (getting Love particularly hard).

As for the UCLA game, the non-call on Anderson was atrocious. No excuse for it. My understanding, though was that Shipp's basket was the correct call. Evidently it's out of bounds if it goes over in the other direction (i.e. from front to back), but not in reverse.

[DoubleD86]

On the UCLA situation:

I am not sure about the rule whether coming from behind and going in front is out of bounds.

But either way, even if it should have been called out of bounds, you don't make that call at the end of the game. If it would have been called there would have been just as much complaint. It was a very close play that I personally think the refs made the right decision to let go.

By the way, I hate UCLA and how lucky they have gotten over the past two games.

[michiganXman]

Can't complain about the officials this year. Throughout the year I thought X got a very fair shake with the refs. And in a couple close games (St. Joes at home and @ Charlotte) we benefitted from some very "questionable" calls.

[Xman95]

But either way, even if it should have been called out of bounds, you don't make that call at the end of the game.

Yes, you do make that call at the end of a game. Just as refs should make legit foul calls at the end of the game. The theory that "refs shouldn't determine the outcome" is nothing more than giving the stripes a free pass for not having to call anything. By not calling something that would have been called in the first 39 minutes, the refs are, in fact, determining the outcome by rewarding a team that should be penalized.

In the case of the Shipp shot, maybe the ref didn't have a good look. But, if he clearly saw the ball go over the backboard, he blew the call and helped determine the UCLA victory.

I'm so tired of people making the claim that things shouldn't be called at the end of the game. It's complete crap. Call the end just like you did every other second of the game. That way refs really don't determine the outcome.

[LA Muskie]

I was wrong in my post above when I said that I believed that it was not out of bounds if the ball game from behind the backboard. According to the NCAA basketball rules: "The ball shall be out of bounds when it passes the backboard from any direction."

Apparently the referees are saying it was too close to call. Funny, because CBS or ABC (I can't remember on which it aired) showed the reply about 25 times while the refs were trying to figure out how much time to put on the clock, and it didn't seem at all close to me.

As for whether the official should make that call, if they didn't know the rule (and I'm not saying they didn't) then there is absolutely no excuse (unlike me, they are paid to know the rules); regardless, that call needs to be made. It's not like a judgment call on contact in the lane at the end of the game. It's the equivalent of counting a basket after time has expired -- by rule, the basket should not count.

[garvondavis14]

exactly, 95.

you said it perfectly. it's a complete joke when people say you shouldn't call stuff at the end.

[xcellent]

There has been some awful officiating this year in just about every conference. That last call should have been made, and it was obvious. They can look at the replay, and every shot of it showed it was over the backboard. As for not deciding the game on that, are you kidding me? So you are saying that a play that was made in opposition of the rules, that WINS the game for you shouldn't be called a foul because it affects the outcome? So if you are going in for a basket with 2 seconds left and I punch you in the face, they shouldn't call the foul because it affect the outcome? I very much disagree that the refs shouldn't affect the outcome of a game. That is what they do the ENTIRE game. Every call they make affects the outcome of the game, because it affects the game. Now I don't think you should call ticky-tack foul at the end, but if its a foul it should be called. The ball over the backboard was in violation of the rules and therefore not a basket. Doesn't this mean that the refs affected the outcome because they didn't make the call?

[xuhuh!]

the worst officiating i can't shake off was the KANSAS STATE game @ US BANK arena. I think 1 of the refs even had his shirt on backwards