Miami vs. Akron - WTF is happening?

MicroBob · #1 03-10-2007, 10:00 PM

If the clock started late then that means the game would have ended EARLIER. When the ball was in mid-air as opposed to when it went through the basket.

Are they getting this completely backwards or what?

WTF?!?!?!?!

MicroBob · #2 03-10-2007, 10:03 PM

this is outrageous. this is ridiculously wrong.
They subtracted when they should have added.

The game should have ended when the ball was in mid-air, not when it went through the hoop.

Austiger · #3 03-10-2007, 10:08 PM

yeah, it was a joke. First of all, how hard is it to start a clock when the ball is touched? But yeah, the addition of time on the end made absolutely no sense at all. At least the right team won.

MicroBob · #4 03-10-2007, 10:17 PM

I'm amazed that nobody figured out what the hell was going on.

The announcers had it pretty much just as backwards as the referees.

Nobody on the Miami bench or sports-info or media crew could have told them that there's no way time should be ADDED in that spot?

I'm a Miami alum and die-hard fan so I'm pretty excited we're going to thedance after that ridiculous shot.
As a kid growing up there I had a 12 year stretch where I only missed 1 home-game so I'm way beyond pumped.

But I'm a bit embarassed that not a single person on the Miami side was able to figure out that the game would have ended EARLIER...not later.

How the hell do they come to the conclusion that time needed to be put back ONTO the clock? That's just bizarre.

The officiating crew, Sam Lickliter and Rick Chryst (commissioner of the MAC) should all feel like they have egg on their face.
But I'm not even sure they realize what a horrible, horrible error they made.

Somebody needs to tell them.

Austiger · #5 03-10-2007, 10:22 PM

There's always the chance that they did not want to alert them to the fact that time should be taken off in case they would disallow the shot. But yeah, it's amazing that neither the announcers nor the refs, nor apparently anyone else there figured it out.

I feel bad for Akron as they haven't been to the dance in 20 years and they have had some good teams, including this year (25 wins.) That's a heart-breaker.

Assani Fisher · #6 03-10-2007, 10:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's always the chance that they did not want to alert them to the fact that time should be taken off in case they would disallow the shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't do this. Even if the clock started late, the play stands. They can correct the clock after the play if theres a problem with it, but they cannot change the results of the play since people were playing according to how the clock was running at that time.

Assani Fisher · #7 03-10-2007, 10:37 PM

btw...sick sick ending

Austiger · #8 03-10-2007, 10:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's always the chance that they did not want to alert them to the fact that time should be taken off in case they would disallow the shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't do this. Even if the clock started late, the play stands. They can correct the clock after the play if theres a problem with it, but they cannot change the results of the play since people were playing according to how the clock was running at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming these officials know that rule, which is a big assumption.

MicroBob · #9 03-10-2007, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's always the chance that they did not want to alert them to the fact that time should be taken off in case they would disallow the shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't do this. Even if the clock started late, the play stands. They can correct the clock after the play if theres a problem with it, but they cannot change the results of the play since people were playing according to how the clock was running at that time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assani - considering the obvious lack of intelligence of the best MAC officials I think it is still a potentially valid concern.
If they can't tell the difference between when they should add or subtract then there is the chance that the officials could bizarrely and erroneously decide that the play shouldn't count because the clock started a half-second late.

I don't think this is why Miami wasn't protesting. I suspect they were just as confused as everyone else.
But don't put anything past the MAC on something like this.

This could have been a REALLY sick ending if Akron had somehow scored in the last .6 secs that they never deserved in the first place.

Regarding the Miami kid's shot.
First - Wow! Holy crap.
And it looked okay to me.
I think about a half-second delay for the start of the clock. And he got it off with 1.2 left or so I believe.

One should also note that the clock almost never starts IMMEDIATELY after it is touched. There is almost always a delay of a couple-tenths of a second or so which is normally not considered a big deal.

Agree that this time the guy on the trigger was obviously slower than he should have been.

I also noticed that the play right before that (when the Akron player was fouled and then missed the FT) he was kind of slow to stop it after the whistle had blown.
I actually thought Miami was deserving of maybe .5 secs for that one. It happened pretty fast but it definitely looked like the clock kept ticking longer than it should have after the whistle.

MicroBob · #10 03-11-2007, 12:00 AM

It just occured to me.

Maybe the scoreboard operator realized he was late stopping the clock on the previous play and he was just trying to make up for it on the missed FT with a delayed start.

But when the Akron coach and officials noticed it and freaked-out about it he was too embarassed to say so because he's not supposed to do anything like that without their approval (and now there is no need to do anything like that because the modern clocks can be reset to the tenth of a second that you want).

It's possible I think.

but it still doesn't explain why those guys made such a bizarrely backwards decision.