Tennessee–Rutgers

Officially, Tennessee center Nicky Anosike was fouled by Rutgers’ Kia Vaughn with 0.2 seconds left in the game and Tennessee trailing by 1. Anosike made both free throws, and Tennessee won the game.

But ... the clock appeared to have stopped at 0.2 seconds, and stayed there for a short period of time, before running down to zero. What happened? ESPN, to its credit, does an analysis of the video to help provide more facts and possibly eliminate the emotion surrounding this event. They show that the clock stopped at 0.2 seconds, and stayed there for 1.3 seconds. But they did the wrong analysis! It is irrelevant how long the clock stayed at 0.2. If the foul occurred 0.1 seconds after the clock froze, then the foul should be penalized, free throws shot, and, well, you know what happened.

However, over at YouTube, someone did the right analysis. We can see a superimposed timer, synchronized with the game clock starting with 1.0 seconds left, showing what the clock should have read after it froze at 0.2 seconds. The only problem is that from the angle shown on this video, you can’t specifically see when the foul occurred. I believe that the foul actually occurred a hair after the clock hits zero, but you could also make the argument that the foul occurred a hair before the clock hits zero.

So what to make of this? What do we think of the officials handling of this situation? First, there is no doubt that there was a foul. They were absolutely correct to signal the foul, as the buzzer hadn’t sounded. The only question is: did time expire before the foul because of the clock malfunction? Since the officials did not have the YouTube video, and since this video shows the foul occurred within a hair of 0.0, I don’t have a problem with the decision to say the foul occurred before time expired. Could the officials (should the officials) have noticed that the clock froze at 0.2? Possibly, but note that ESPN’s announcers (Eric Collins and Carolyn Peck) didn’t notice the clock freezing until the third or fourth replay. It’s not something you normally look for, as I have never seen it happen in any other situation. So even if the officials noticed the clock freezing at 0.2, then what? They still have to decide whether or not the foul occurred before 0.0 should have occurred, and that would be an extremely difficult thing to do given the video evidence. If you notice the clock has frozen at 0.2, it is not an automatic decision that the foul came after 0.0. And so, I give the officials the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Which brings me to a larger point, one that I have felt strongly about for many years. I get so tired of coaches and players, in effect, saying “We wuz robbed”. I would have more tolerance for this attitude if they would also say, at other times in their career, that the officials or timing device erred in their favor and they didn’t really deserve the win. But as far as I can remember, that has never happened. No one ever says that. Clock errors happen, and they will happen again in the future. One side or the other will not be happy, and you know what? I have no sympathy. It’s part of sports, deal with it.

Side point: several people, including an announcer or two, have stated that the whistle didn’t blow until after 0.0. A variation was that the referee didn’t raise his/her arm until after 0.0. And neither the whistle, nor the raising of an arm, is important here. The only thing that matters is whether the contact on Anosike was before 0.0 or not. The whistle can be after 0.0, it doesn’t mean a thing if the actual contact was before 0.0.

Side point: the manufacturer of the clock seems to think that the only way for the clock to freeze as it did was because someone pushed a button. He rules out (but I do not rule out) an electrical or mechanical malfunction. I guess we will never know.