Cheerleader Ruling
by mabake02 on Feb 27, 2011 10:12 PM EST
Email
PrintFrom the rulebook: [ http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf ]
Art. 9 Team followers, as in Rule 4-27, shall not commit an unsportsmanlike
act, including, but not limited to, the following:
Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made
live or by preventing continuous play, such as but not limited to,
followers entering the playing court before the player activity has
been terminated. When the delay does not interfere with play, it shall
be ignored. [emphasis mine]
So, a ref calling this game has the option of saying that an overzealous cheerleader did or did not "interfere" with play. Since most of the Pitt players were literally watching the ball bounce around and lollygagging their way back up the court, a reasonable person might conclude there was no interference. The one guy looking to inbound the ball had no one to throw the ball to anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G5Y16pUgow
With 0.3 seconds left, the only way Pitt could have gotten a shot to win was some foolishness like this. Great win by the Cards today, despite the actions of the Cheerbuddy.
I hope that when the refs get graded on their performance today they receive deplorable evaluations (not just for this call though).
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's all good
Can’t say I fault the cheerleader for throwing the ball in the air, since the horn did go off
Can’t really fault the refs for calling the T, since it technically did delay play
Fortunately, it just gave them a desperation shot that was way off. So, we can remember this one as a great win with a quirky ending
Strongly disagree on the refs part.
Since the horn sounded and the clock had expired, the refs would clearly have to stop play and go to the monitor to see how much time to put back on the clock. This is not conjecture as this is exactly what they did. So, clearly
1. Cheerleaders action occurred after the horn sounded which indicates the game is over
2. If the game was not over, then there would have to be a stoppage of play to check the monitor to see how much time to put back on the clock
3. Therefore, if there was a delay in play, the reason was the clock malfunction, NOT the cheerleaders actions. Also, had he not touched the ball, the refs would not have needed the ball for the inbound play until AFTER checking the monitor, so there is no question that the cheerleaders actions DID NOT cause any delay in the game.
by Carolina Cardinal on Feb 28, 2011 7:50 AM EST up reply actions
Watch the replay
After his dunk, the clock stops with .3 seconds left. The cheerleader then throws the ball into the air. As soon as he does, the ref under the basket blows his whistle and starts moving toward the ball and the other official, and it looks fairly obvious that he’s doing that because of the cheerleader throwing the ball. After that the clock runs for the last three tenths of a second, sounding the horn.
In this case the T was the correct call. The clock operator screwed up after the incident that caused the T. Yes, the cheerleader was boneheaded, and the clock operator stupid or deaf from the crowd noise, but the refs did the right thing.
by CardinalDude on Feb 28, 2011 9:17 AM EST up reply actions
if the clock stopped before the incident at 0.3
and the refs determined that it should have been 0.5, then how can you say the clock error occurred after the cheerleader incident?
The cheerleader’s action, occurring as it did with the clock stopped, might have cause a delay of a few seconds, but the rule acknowledges that a delay in and of itself does not constitute interference with play. And especially in view of the fact that the clock was wrong even before the incident, the delay clearly did not intefere with play, and by rule, should have been ignored.
"Screech, you CAN'T elope!"
"Who are you calling a cantaloupe, you melonhead?"
For Preston.
Section 5. (Men) CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions
Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including,
but not limited to, the following:
a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in
such a manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another
player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene
gestures toward another player or bench personnel.
c. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction
if this rule is used in application to ! then Rock should have gotten a technical for tearing his ACL. It created an undesirable crowd reaction.
Any dunk that sends the crowd into a frenzy could then be considered undesirable.
My question, why would you post this? I’m giving you a technical for creating an undesirable crowd reaction. ! (who shall not be named) does not meddle in the tasteless as you have so indicated.
Is it inciting if the crowd reaction is already underway? I always thought inciting meant starting something.
I felt he was just agreeing with the chant that was already going.
Also, under the letter of this rule, a player who scores a goal and then points in acknowledgement towards the guy who assisted him is guilty of “pointing a finger at … another player…” – the point being that a ref has to exercise some judgment with regard to intent and impact. You have to look at the spirit of the rule.
Kyle’s “taunt” clearly was not a taunt. Preston’s finger-pointing in sympathy with a “bullshit” chant was borderline. The cheerleader’s action would have had no effect on the outcome of the game, especially since the clock was stopped, if the refs had just let it go.
"Screech, you CAN'T elope!"
"Who are you calling a cantaloupe, you melonhead?"
Preston did more than point his finger.
You all sound like a bunch of whiny ass UK fans. Get a clue, the world does not hate UofL.
whoa
pull out your tampon and don’t insult us like that
whoa
That was almost funny, a tampon joke, really? I can’t even imagine a come back that would match your level of maturity so i’ll just let you giggle with your dormfriends about your internet funny.
The real question
For me is why did the reffs add .2 on the clock? So instead of .3 on the clock, there was .5 which allowed Pitt to get a final shot off… When you watch it you can see that the clock clearly stopped at .3 so I guess the real question for me is…is there some random rule I am unaware of that allowed the refs to add time?
I really wish I could have seen everything live but CBS took our game off the air at the start of OT to put the beginning of the Ohio state vs Indiana game, which was a blow out. I was so pissed.
The point is...
If you put yourself into a gray area where a T might be called; you shouldn’t be surprised that one is called.
KK’s “taunt” is the least gray of these, as it is probably the weakest technical in history.
Both of the others were clearly in the gray area, so the fact they were called shouldn’t be surprising.
In my opinion, KK’s shouldn’t have been called (or even considered), PK’s should have been called and the cheerleaders should have been considered, but not called.
The thing I’m most surprised about is that no official signaled a technical foul during the live action. They called it well after the action was over. I think they only called it because they assumed it probably wouldn’t impact the outcome of the game. If it was a 1 or 2 point game rather than a 5 point game, no way they make that call.
by Remote Cardinal on Feb 28, 2011 12:26 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
