St. John's vs. Rutgers

I know this controversial ending has been well-analyzed and over-analyzed over the past 20 hours by fans, commentators, coaches, and head-honchos of the Big East and NCAA. So let's discuss how we feel about what happened in Madison Square Garden yesterday afternoon.

Just to recap the scenario: with about 8 seconds left and Rutgers down by 1, Mike Coburn of the Scarlet Knights drove the lane and missed. Here's issue number one as there was lots of contact on the shot. No foul called, St. John's gets the rebound and is fouled.

They miss the second free throw. Here's issue number two as a St. John's player clearly goes over the back of a Rutgers player. No foul called, the ball is tipped out of bounds off of Rutgers.

After another foul and Rutgers making one of two at the line, Rutgers must inbound the full length of the court with only 5 seconds left and a two-point deficit. They throw it to midcourt, where there is some contact (issue number three) and the ball ends up in the possession of a St. John's defender who proceeds to run the clock out.

But that brings on the final two issues. In running out the clock, St. John's player Justin Brownlee clearly took three steps, traveling, not called. The second and third steps were clearly out of bounds (not just like a toe on the line, but a full foot out) with 1.7 seconds on the clock, again not called. Instead Brownlee tossed the ball into the crowd and the referees allowed the clock to expire and the game to end.


So let's analyze the five issues of the final 10 seconds of the game.

Issue #1: Most analysts I've heard so far, including ESPN's Jay Bilas in a plethora of tweets, say that this was the non-call with which they had the biggest issue. There was obvious contact and the defender's arms were anything but straight up. Textbook blocking call. I disagree. I've seen that exact play end as a non-call many times, and understand it this time, too. Coburn was very much out of control as he entered the lane, thus why I like a no-call even though the defender definitely was not straight up.

Issue #2: No box-out by the Rutgers player makes it virtuously impossible to call an over the back foul. However, even so, the St. John's player still makes significant contact going for the rebound, which usually is grounds to call the foul. So I'm a bit torn on this one, but again with so little time left I agree with a no-call. (But did they even get right who the last player was to touch the ball before it went OB? Because I'm not so sure from the limited replays I've seen).

Issue #3: Incidental contact going for a 50-50 ball, definitely agree with a no-call, but understand a coach trying to petition for a call.

Issue #4: Textbook definition of traveling. How all three referees miss this I don't understand.

Issue #5: A full foot out of bounds...the analysts says that one ref is occupied with the Rutgers coach yelling for a foul, a second is blocked by the St. John's coach (who is well out of the coaching box, another issue that I think is never enforced enough). But where is the third ref?  What's his excuse? Probably was on the other side of the court and couldn't see where the OB line is...

Defenders of the refs will say that even had the traveling/OB been called that Rutgers still would have to make a shot and they should have won the game earlier....well my answer to that is that anything can happen with 1.7 seconds left. When I first heard of this crazy ending (I missed it live) all I could think of was that this sounded familiar...I must thank SportsCenter for confirming my suspicions. In the 2003 Big 12 Tournament, Colorado beat Kansas State on an eerily similar finish, just with a different outcome.  With a two point lead, Kansas State intercepted an inbounds pass with 3 seconds left. The Wildcat player proceeded to travel (which was called) and Colorado was given 1.8 seconds (seem familiar?) for one more play. They got the inbounds pass in and James Wright banked in a three-point buzzer-beater to win. So don't tell me Rutgers couldn't have come back!

My opinion is that referees are supposed to facilitate the game, and in a perfect world it should seem like they aren't even there. Good luck with that. Refs/Umps/Officials are a part of the game. They always have been and always will be. Human error is part of sports. I don't want robotic referees. Sometimes you just have to deal with a bad call every once in a while. It's called judgement calls for a reason.  I also believe that, with new technology, we should be able to fix incorrect calls. Replay shows pretty clearly that a player walked out of bounds. There's a concrete definition of out of bounds, why can't it be reviewed? I've said this for years in football, too. How can some plays be deemed reviewable and some not reviewable even when the obvious answer is seen in a replay?


So am I being too rough on the refs? Or too easy? What's your opinion on the way this game ended? What are your thoughts on officiating in general? We want your opinion!!!! What do all the fans think? You can comment on this article directly or by emailing or tweeting us @3SNetwork.