UCSB protests UCLA win, cites referee error

E

espola

Last week UCLA won at UCSB 2-1 in overtime. UCLA's first goal came with 3 seconds remaining in the game after the referee had put 5 seconds back on the clock after time had run out. There are specific instances where the referee is permitted to stop or adjust the clock, but none of those happened in the game situation. As a result, UCSB is protesting the game result.

http://gauchosoccer.com/2016/09/21/ucla-result-appealed/

Discussion from UCSB web page here --

http://ucsbgauchos.yuku.com/topic/20370/UCSB-appealing-UCLA-result#.V-R2liRdu1s
 
Is there video of the end of the game and the dives that they are talking about? I can not find anything on youtube.
 
espola said:
Last week UCLA won at UCSB 2-1 in overtime. UCLA's first goal came with 3 seconds remaining in the game after the referee had put 5 seconds back on the clock after time had run out. There are specific instances where the referee is permitted to stop or adjust the clock, but none of those happened in the game situation. As a result, UCSB is protesting the game result.

http://gauchosoccer.com/2016/09/21/ucla-result-appealed/

Discussion from UCSB web page here --

http://ucsbgauchos.yuku.com/topic/20370/UCSB-appealing-UCLA-result#.V-R2liRdu1s
Click to expand...

I think their protest has a chance, but regardless, what poor goalkeeping. This is a non-issue if the goalkeeper doesn't let the ball go right through his hands.
 
espola said:
If Ilioski hadn't thrown that horrible dive, the game would have ended with UCSB winning.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but if you are UCSB you can only control certain things. You can't control the UCLA player diving. You can't control the ref falling for it. You can't control the ref stopping the time. You can control making a routine save. All those other things aren't even talked about if the GK makes a simple save. Now they have to go and protest, which they should win if you ask me, but it should never have come to that, even with all the diving and poor reffing.
 
I will give you my take on what I saw on the video. To start with the referee is far too casual. No foul. The UCSB player had already kicked the ball when the UCLA player came through and made contact with the UCSB players leg. Once the Ref decides a foul has occurred there is nothing wrong with the Referee stopping the clock for the foul, especially if he thinks the UCLA player may have been injured. But, the referee never goes to check on the UCLA player even though he is still on the ground holding his head. Any possible or perceived head injury should have had the trainers on instantly.

Now is when some of you will not agree with me. The clock is a big deal in college since once it hits zero the game is over. So now think like a referee. The foul is called not when the whistle blows but when the Referee determines a foul occurred. It took approximately two seconds for the ref to whistle the foul and indicate "stop the clock." So, I can understand the Ref's justification for adding 2 seconds back onto the clock, but not 5 seconds. So, if he was going to add time he should have added 2 seconds. If you watch the Ref he blows the whistle to restart play and the clock and it takes 3 seconds for UCLA to take the kick. Had the Ref only added the 2 seconds then the clock would have hit zero and the goal would not have been scored.

IMHO the whole thing should never have occurred because there was no foul. UCSB did not protest the foul call, because judgment call are one of the things that cannot be protested. Hopefully they did a good job with the protest write up.
 
Surfref said:
I will give you my take on what I saw on the video. To start with the referee is far too casual. No foul. The UCSB player had already kicked the ball when the UCLA player came through and made contact with the UCSB players leg. Once the Ref decides a foul has occurred there is nothing wrong with the Referee stopping the clock for the foul, especially if he thinks the UCLA player may have been injured. But, the referee never goes to check on the UCLA player even though he is still on the ground holding his head. Any possible or perceived head injury should have had the trainers on instantly.

Now is when some of you will not agree with me. The clock is a big deal in college since once it hits zero the game is over. So now think like a referee. The foul is called not when the whistle blows but when the Referee determines a foul occurred. It took approximately two seconds for the ref to whistle the foul and indicate "stop the clock." So, I can understand the Ref's justification for adding 2 seconds back onto the clock, but not 5 seconds. So, if he was going to add time he should have added 2 seconds. If you watch the Ref he blows the whistle to restart play and the clock and it takes 3 seconds for UCLA to take the kick. Had the Ref only added the 2 seconds then the clock would have hit zero and the goal would not have been scored.

IMHO the whole thing should never have occurred because there was no foul. UCSB did not protest the foul call, because judgment call are one of the things that cannot be protested. Hopefully they did a good job with the protest write up.
Click to expand...

Under NCAA rules, there are limited occasions when the referee may stop the clock. Calling a foul is not one of them, unless he is going to issue a card. There was no card issued in this situation.

As for the injury possibility, the referee certainly knows how much time is left because the announcer does an audible countdown the last 10 seconds - another NCAA rule. If the clock is already at zero, what time is there to stop? In the 100 or so college games I have witnessed, the usual behavior is for the referee first to assess the possible injury, and THEN stop the clock to allow trainers onto the field.

In a more general sense, it would be interesting to see a replay of the whole game, even without the inane UCSB announcers, and ask yourself how this referee got this assignment in the first place.
 
HouseofCards said:
I don't disagree, but if you are UCSB you can only control certain things. You can't control the UCLA player diving. You can't control the ref falling for it. You can't control the ref stopping the time. You can control making a routine save. All those other things aren't even talked about if the GK makes a simple save. Now they have to go and protest, which they should win if you ask me, but it should never have come to that, even with all the diving and poor reffing.
Click to expand...
You call that a "simple" save? Is that a joke?
 
If the NCAA ever needed a reason to get rid of the absurd "clock that counts down", then this is it.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the NCAA has always felt the need to write their own rules for a sport that has been played for over 100 years.
 
texanincali said:
If the NCAA ever needed a reason to get rid of the absurd "clock that counts down", then this is it.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the NCAA has always felt the need to write their own rules for a sport that has been played for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that is one advantage the college game has over club and MLS - no funny business with the referee's private clock. Long gone are the days when the referee was the only person in town with a stopwatch.
 
texanincali said:
If the NCAA ever needed a reason to get rid of the absurd "clock that counts down", then this is it.

For the life of me, I can't understand why the NCAA has always felt the need to write their own rules for a sport that has been played for over 100 years.
Click to expand...
Every league in the world has competition rules.
 
NCAA turned down UCSB's protest.

Lesson learned -- whatever it takes to overturn a game result is greater than the referee ignoring NCAA rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top