11/21/24
January 26, 2007
ACC admits to 'timing error' in final seconds in Duke win over Clemson. : Using the video supplied by ESPN on the page, it is clear that the winning basket would not have been made in time, and the game should have gone into overtime. Everyone always complains how the referees 'play favorites' for Duke...this is an example.
posted by BigTallChris to basketball at 06:43 PM - 39 comments
Who ever heard of such a thing. I watched the game and couldn't believe they gave them 4+ seconds. I have seen so many timing mistakes this year, like never before. It seems that the error proof timing is quite the opposite.
posted by grenade at 07:08 PM on January 26, 2007
This is once again a prime example of how everyone in the ACC bows down to Mike K. and are completely imtimidated by him and the "Duke Mystic". I would love to see an official finally show those spoiled little rich kids that there are no extra advantages to be given and when Coach K goes on one of his rants slap him with a T.
posted by bigraddad47 at 07:26 PM on January 26, 2007
As a University of North Carolina alum, this is just another piece of evidence that Dook absolutely and completely sux. They, like evil itself, must be stopped.
posted by BlueCarp at 07:36 PM on January 26, 2007
Big shocker,puke gets away with cheating at cameron indoor.I'm shocked!!!
posted by mars1 at 07:37 PM on January 26, 2007
it shouldn't surprise anyone. anyone famous or well-known player gets away with much more than the average joe ball player. it's unfortunate, but untill someone tightens up, it'll be that way
posted by bavarianmotorworker at 08:35 PM on January 26, 2007
As a University of North Carolina alum, this is just another piece of evidence Dook absolutely sux. They, like evil itself, must be stopped.Well, I'm hoping you weren't an English major at North Carolina, maybe someone in Duke's English department could help you with some remedial work. Mistakes like this happen more often than you think. The Toronto Raptors were victims of something similar earlier this year, where a basket simply wasn't recorded in a game against Atlanta. They ended up losing the game by 4 points. I don't think Duke is at fault, shouldn't the referees have been on top of something like that?
posted by tommybiden at 08:53 PM on January 26, 2007
It was a big mistake, but it didn't determine the outcome of the game. The three shouldn't have even counted since the clock started, and there shouldn't have been that much time put on the clock. Take off you tin foil hats.
posted by corpse at 08:57 PM on January 26, 2007
Actually, the more ironic thing is that after winning, the Duke players tackled one another and rolled around on the floor just like Virginia Tech did when they beat Duke. That was when Coach K told some of the Tech players they were too classy and intelligent to behave in that manner. And despite my sign in name, I'm not a fan of any ACC school. I went to UNC Charlotte (undefeated in football yet again in 2006).
posted by carolinared at 09:08 PM on January 26, 2007
Funny how the darling teams seem to get the breaks.
posted by whitedog65 at 12:30 AM on January 27, 2007
tommytrump, Dook is a traditional mispelling done on purpose by UNC alum to show our disdain for the little school up the road. If you were to visit Chapel Hill, you would find many comedic tshirts that make puns of this spelling. And as an UNC alum, I must side with the conspriacy theory in that Coack K is always given breaks. I have personally witnessed many games where DooK [sic] players have taken cheap shots, thrown obvious elbows and walked a country mile while driving the lane - all with no call.
posted by FonGu at 05:38 AM on January 27, 2007
And here is a link to show that hatred for the Dookies is not limited to UNC alum. No, this is not my site and I'm not plugging anything for profit.
posted by FonGu at 06:08 AM on January 27, 2007
Remember a year ago or more when confronted with a reporters comment or question that Duke has gotten every break for several years, Coach K. responded with an angry "Are you saying the games are fixed?" Perhaps the reporter hit it right on the head--it seems to me there have been far too many of these referee and timing errors over the years to merely reflect unconscious favoritism for a team with the rep--maybe there should be some investigation. Do refs get choice assignments subsequent to Duke wins? Do the networks get higher ratings or charge higher rates for commercial time when Duke is on winnng streak? I'm not usually a Les Nessman conspiracy freak, but this has been nagging at me for years.
posted by mikeglit at 07:13 AM on January 27, 2007
I think it would be awfully hard to prove that an official intentionally cheated for the befenfit of Duke. There exists a possiblility, maybe slight, that the clock official was caught up in the excitement of the game. The excitement may have caused him to not start the clock in time; its just a hunch. I am neither a fan of Duke nor North Carolina; I am just trying to be objective. My grievance here is the confirmation of an error resulted in no action. Perhaps a remedy, although probably unfavorable, could be to remove the game from the record book or call it a tie. As a University of North Carolina alum, this is just another piece of evidence that Dook absolutely and completely sux. They, like evil itself, must be stopped. This is all the evidence I need not to send my child to North Carolina for an education. :)
posted by danjel at 07:47 AM on January 27, 2007
This is all the evidence I need not to send my child to North Carolina for an education. :) Ouch! Nice jab danjel. I just hope to God you are not sending your kid to Duke or THE Ohio State!
posted by FonGu at 07:52 AM on January 27, 2007
How many threads have we had that end up in conspiracy theorys about an official intentionally favoring one team over another. Get over it, they are no more perfect than the rest of us. Shit happens!
posted by Psycho at 09:07 AM on January 27, 2007
Unlike weathermen, game officials are paid to be perfect, or as close to perfect as possible. That is why people talk about it when they fail to do their jobs correctly.
posted by FonGu at 09:25 AM on January 27, 2007
This is all the evidence I need not to send my child to North Carolina for an education. :) Which Uni taught you "befenfit"? I don't plan on having kids, so it's no biggie, I'm just curious.
posted by Ufez Jones at 09:37 AM on January 27, 2007
It is always the Refs are cheating, except when it is your (Figure of speech.) team that gets the "Lucky breaks"! Coach K is a good coach and always puts a good team on the floor! (I am a Pitt fan.) I cannot see the Refs cheating for Duke. People make mistakes and believe it or not the Refs are human!
posted by steelerchooks at 09:37 AM on January 27, 2007
I think the general consensus is Duke seems to get an unsual number of breaks in key situations. I don't think it could be factually proven in this forum if that result is due to Coach K's abilities, athletic prowess, human error, corrupt officials, or even alignment of the planets. It is, however, fun to speculate...
posted by FonGu at 09:56 AM on January 27, 2007
As I recall, UNC under Dean Smith got more than their fair share of calls. The same controversy that follows Coach K used to follow Smith. Just like in the NBA, the big names get the calls. It's unfortunate but the way it is.
posted by carolinared at 10:01 AM on January 27, 2007
Which Uni taught you "befenfit"? I don't plan on having kids, so it's no biggie, I'm just curious. If only our fingers were educated and not our brains, then we would not have to deal with typos. Thanks for the shot; it was deserved. However, I have posted to the locker room about the inconsistency of not being able to edit comments after they have been posted. I did catch the "befenfit" but only after I posted the comment. I was not allowed to edit the comment and I did not take longer than the alloted three minutes.
posted by danjel at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2007
Psycho is correct it is the referee....the least perfect person on the planet, because there is just something 'wrong' with a person who wants that job!
posted by shudacudawuda at 02:46 PM on January 27, 2007
Okay, first: Biased posts make for biased discussions. The way the post was written brought out whiny homers on all sides, and there's no actual discussion about how timekeepers are chosen or instructed, and how much of an advantage the home team should have. Which is too bad. Secondly, this one occurrence is obviously part of a larger conspiracy to keep one university popular above all others, and no other team, at any level, in any sport, ever gets these breaks, not even every once in a while, ever. Obviously. And thirdly, if there was less time on the clock, they would have run a different play. You can't change just one variable without changing how the rest of the game plays out.
posted by chicobangs at 04:56 PM on January 27, 2007
Okay, all of you people who think it's no conspiracy; if it's all "part of the game" how come 1) Duke and a few other favorites seem to get the favorable calls about 80% of the time, and 2) if it isn't intentional, why are the refs held accountable for their performance? If I don't do my job, I get disciplined and possibly fired. Is it too much to expect that refs be held to a standard?
posted by whitedog65 at 05:43 PM on January 27, 2007
Hey whitedog, where'd you get your statistics? What study did that 80% number come from? I didn't go to an American university. I have no dog in this fight. But obviously, you're quoting a study. Is it online? Can you link to it? (And "C'mon, you know it's true!" is not an acceptable comeback.)
posted by chicobangs at 06:12 PM on January 27, 2007
As someone who has played basketball my entire life, I can honestly say that "timing mistakes" are and always will be a part of the "home court advantage". At the end of a close game on the road, you know you needed to fire it up quickly because the clock is going to start a little bit before it hits your hand (and vice versa). You would think at this high level of the game, the timing difference wouldn't be so blatant, but I challenge anyone to look at the end of close games across the board and tell me that you don't see the home team getting the benefit of a quick/slow clock.
posted by yay-yo at 06:16 PM on January 27, 2007
yay-yo, your spot on here. I witnessed that in my playing career in all sports. That is why my coaches always harped about not putting the game in a position where some "home cooking" could allow you to post a "L".
posted by FonGu at 06:26 PM on January 27, 2007
This is all the evidence I need not to send my child to North Carolina for an education. :) Since when do ditch diggers need an education? :)
posted by BlueCarp at 07:43 PM on January 27, 2007
Chicobangs, actually I said "about 80%", which means approximately or in the vicinity of, which indicates that it is not a hard fact from a study. Now, why didn't you address point #2?
posted by whitedog65 at 01:58 AM on January 28, 2007
How about this. I thought the time keeper, who is normally a person from the home team, did something I thought was pretty shrewd as soon as it happened. I immediately was aware that the clock hadn't stopped and didn't until Duke called Time Out. I'm thinkin' to myself, hmmm 1.8 seconds left, no way they'll get a shot off, and I'm waitin' to see Coach K go start a fuss with the the ref's and the time keeper. Didn't happen. The ref's went to the scorers table and reviewed the replays and made their decision as to an amount of time to put back on the clock. 4.4 seconds is what they came up with. Now I'm thinkin' that ain't right, cause there' no way that guy got a shot off in .6 seconds and I realize that in my peripheral vision I rember 3.8 seconds. My conclusion was at the time, before ESPN started airing the replay and pointing out the error, the time keeper took all the weight off him and placed it squarely on the ref's. Coach K can't say a word about the clock, the time keeper can't be blamed, and the whole thing rests squarely in the lap of the officials! Yes it was a 'homer' move and it worked, but I can't say I haven't seen situations similar to this numerous times in arenas all around the country.It's why home teams normally win close games.
posted by brbcca at 02:07 AM on January 28, 2007
Now, why didn't you address point #2? whitedog, I did, right above your comment. Thanks for reading. I understand the passion, and I even understand the whining from everyone on all sides about how the court is tilted against them all the time, but honestly, if you really believe what you're saying and you're not just blowing off steam, that Duke gets the lion's share of the breaks and the rest of the conference/NCAA/whatever can't catch an even break, then you're choosing to only see one side of the story.
posted by chicobangs at 10:06 AM on January 28, 2007
Chicobangs, actually I said "about 80%", which means approximately or in the vicinity of, which indicates that it is not a hard fact from a study. ? Where does one get 80%?
posted by avogadro at 10:29 AM on January 28, 2007
Whitedog, you must have a source for 'about 80 %.' I think we just want to know your reference for that, ......or....are you just pulling a number out of your ass?
posted by tommybiden at 11:00 AM on January 28, 2007
A guy called avogadro waits five years to comment and when he does, it's about a number. I think I just had a moment.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:07 PM on January 28, 2007
Whatever you say, Chicobangs. Your post that supposedly addresses point #2 doesn't even get close, but thanks for the smartass comment. Maybe you need to do a little re-reading. If anyone who dares to question Coach K and Duke must be labeled as conspiracy theorists, put me in that camp. Please keep up the ridicule in order to avoid the issues.
posted by whitedog65 at 12:12 PM on January 28, 2007
Unfortunately, my source must remain confidential, lest his/her life be put in danger from a Mafia hit. However, if you want to spend the time looking at Duke's games from the last several years you might being to notice a pattern of favorable calls going their way. Deny it all you want, keep your Duke goggles on, but many intelligent sports fans wonder how a ref, when calling a Duke game, can miss a travel right in front of him, how a Duke player can run over a player that was set for 2 seconds yet still not be called for a charge, and per this thread, how Duke can magically get extra time for a chance to win the game?
posted by whitedog65 at 12:18 PM on January 28, 2007
A guy called avogadro waits five years to comment and when he does, it's about a number. I think I just had a moment. It's actually been four weeks, but I'm pleased to give you that moment of cognitive dissonance resonance. :)
posted by avogadro at 01:35 PM on January 28, 2007
More to the point, I don't know a single example of a fan who doesn't think that his/her team gets unfair treatment from the refs for whatever reason (or conversely, that "hated rival" gets the benefit of the ref looking the other way. Likewise, teams that get lots of attention (Duke Basketball, Manchester United, Yankees, ND Football, All Blacks) get to field these accusations of favortism on a vastly larger scale. I'd argue, whitedog, that your getting called out because your using pseudo-stats to support what may be your own bias (right or wrong). Just admit that you're biased and that this is fueling your disproportionate outrage. Sports talk is filled with this whingy crap; Sportsfilter need not.
posted by avogadro at 01:43 PM on January 28, 2007
What would have happened if Duke was on the other end and say they were playing South Florida Would be interesting to see what would have happened!