Marquette 82, UConn 76 (OT): The Ref’s Take On ‘The Wrong Direction’

by Categorized: Kevin Ollie, UConn men's basketball
Date:

MILWAUKEE – Here is text of Karl Hess’ remarks to a Marquette spokesman following the game, explaining the confusion at the start of overtime:

“Based on Rule Five, Section One, Article Three, when the official permits a team to go in the wrong direction, and then the error is discovered, all activity and time consumed shall count as though each team had gone in the proper direction. Play is then resumed with each team going in the proper direction.”

“The players went in the wrong direction. Because we allowed that to happen, the only thing that was wrong is there was a goal-tend on the play. We should have scored the goaltend and given Connecticut two points for that.

You have no team control after that, because you have a shot, so now you go to the alternating possession arrow. Because there is no team control at that point and then Marquette gets the ball and you head them in the right direction.”

                                                                                                 *******

In other words, it was a blunder. Kevin Ollie, being Kevin Ollie, was gracious and would not blame the loss on it. “It wasn’t the deciding factor in the game,” he said. “It just got the OT started in a bizarre way.”

It’s one play in a long basketball game in which the lead changed hands many times. But it was a four-point swing at a critical time, so it was undeniably a key factor.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

14 thoughts on “Marquette 82, UConn 76 (OT): The Ref’s Take On ‘The Wrong Direction’

  1. David Schulz

    That was the dumbest call since the Russian vs U.S. Olympic game where the refs kept the game going until the Russians won. These refs were just lucky Calhoun wasn’t coaching. He probably would have eaten one of them. They took the points off the scoreboard, but kept the where it was when the points were scored at 4:45. and then gave Marquette the ball, now under their own basket with a full 35 second clock! Forget the rules, this doesn’t pass simple logic.

  2. Steve

    He states that the error was they should have counted the goaltending, but then in the next breath says, “You have no team control after that, because you have a shot, so now you go to the alternating possession arrow. ” You didn’t have a shot, you had a goal tend, which should have resulted in two points for UConn, and Marquette ball, with no need for the possession arrow. The defending team also doesn’t get the ball under it’s own hoop after a goal tend, so there were three errors within that one call.

    I agree with Ollie, it didn’t necessarily do anything with the outcome, however getting the points and then Marquette inbounding even at half court changes the amount of time and even the set they would have run.

  3. pete

    what a complete rip off!!After watching thousands of games…never ever such a blunder.Fire,suspend Hess?not enough.Like Baseball, play game under protest.replay game from that point and uconn wins.they were playing better at that time.Where is the fire KO?Happy to get $?Fight for your team maybe.Jim was foot stomping in Pomfret iam sure.

  4. Donnie love

    Come on Pete, KO doesn’t want to start out on the bad side of the refs I think. Strange situation to be in, I will agree he could use more fire, but no T’s yet!

    This absolutely swung the game, because you go from being up 2 at the start of OT to being immediately down 2. How do they not say wait didn’t we stop the damn game because of a goaltend? why is the score still tied, let’s fix that. How much do these clowns get paid a game?! If you can’t do your job right for 2 damn hours, you should’nt get paid

    1. Tom

      A bigger question is – how do the three other officials at the scorer’s table allow this to happen? It is their job to prevent these type of mistakes from happening. I guarantee you it would never have happened at a home UConn game. The Marquette table crew is more guilty than the refs for letting it happen.
      @ Steve & David – there was a shot, that’s how you get goaltending. And based on the NCAA rules, the arrow was the correct way to continue. And the inbounds was in the correct location. And the full shot clock was also correct. It may not be logical, but the refs got all that right.
      @ Donnie – I strongly suspect that all three refs will not keep their pay for that game. That is pretty standard when a major gaffe is made, especially when it affects the outcome.

      1. Steve

        He said the missed the goaltending, and that it should have counted. If by his definition there was a shot, there was a goaltend, resulting in two points for UConn and Marquettes ball with no need to go to the possession arrow. By rule if they allow the teams to go in wrong direction the play is to conclude and then be corrected. The conclusion of said play was a goaltend, not a jump ball.

  5. cepeck

    I’m not sure of the historical stats, by I firmly believe, in college bball, the 1st team to score in OT will win the game more often than not. When UConn got the goal-tending call I assumed advantage UConn, as soon as Marquette scored after the blunder I assumed it was over and it was…

  6. Paul

    You guys finally have a class act for a coach–he did the right thing. Your team is awful anyway!!!!

  7. Dave Lamoureux

    why wasn’t the play rule offensive interference by Marquette and possession given to UConn?

  8. Joe

    There was no team control as soon as the shot was attempted i.e., immediately before the goal tend.

  9. jim

    If they can go to the monitor why cant they go to the internet and look up the rules when they need to

  10. Dave Sauceda

    The refs missed another possible outcome after play was stopped and the improper direction was noted. U-Conn did not shoot until they spent more than 10 seconds in the backcourt. This is a backcourt violation. Since the goal tended shot was after 10 seconds in the backcourt the basket should not count and MU should have been awarded the ball on the 10 second violation.

    The refs, after considerable time trying to figure their mistake out, gave MU the ball on alternating possessions. This almost cost MU the game when there was a jump ball and U-Conn maintained possession despite winning the tip off.

    The refs did line the teams up in the wrong direction for the overtime tipoff. This was a train wreck from the start. But if U-Conn fouls Junior C. before the 3-point shot they win the game. The refs did not miss this call.

  11. buddy

    UConn got hosed by these officials throughout the game. Look at the discrepancy in the foul calls. I have suspected for a long time that the Big East has been against UConn for whatever reasons. It is good that this conference is going away, and the sooner the better. KO is incorrect when he says this did not change the game. Taking two points away in overtime is a big deal. Changed the entire tenor of the game. Between the officials on the court, and the marquette scoring table officials, clearly the fix was in here. Also, shame on Blaney and the other assistants for not helping out here. They expect the players to give their all, but sat by passively as they were getting cheated.

  12. David Mooneyham

    RULE 5: When the official(s) permits a team to go in the wrong direction, and when the error is discovered all activity and time consumed shall count as though each team had gone in the proper direction. Play shall be resumed with each team going in the proper direction.

    So, no, Joe. The basket should have counted, the possession arrow should not have changed or come into question, and the ball should have been given to Marquette, down at the other end of the floor. Hess read the rule, after the game, and then still made up a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to try to cover his backside.

Comments are closed.