Protest: King's Womens Basketball |
(
Appeal Ruling
) |
2010-11 SeasonJanuary 11, 2010 To: Grace Scott, King’s University College; Alan Rogan, Lakeland College FACTS: On November 19, 2010 the Lakeland Women’s Basketball team defeated King’s in overtime. By a letter dated November 22, 2010 King’s has protested the result of the game. In support of its protest, King’s has provided me with a DVD which clearly identifies the basis for the protest. I have reviewed the DVD and have made the following conclusions:
RULING: Article III Section 3 of the Operating Code deals with the appropriate procedure for dealing with protests. The appropriate rules are as follows: 1. Disposition of Protest
The Operating Code provides me with little or no direction on how to deal with protests. One possible interpretation of Rule 2.2 above is that there must be a violation of either the Operating Code or other rules of the Conference in order for an appeal to be successful. I have reviewed the Operating Code and I can find no such violation. The Operating Code does not deal with the conduct of off court officials such as the game clock operator. Notwithstanding that there appears to have been no Operating Code violation, it is my opinion that interpreting the Operating Code in such a manner would lead to absurd results. For example, imagine a situation where a team scores a basket but the game clock operator gives the points to the opposing team. Despite clear video evidence of the error, to suggest that the result could not be protested on the basis that there was no violation of the Operating Code is contrary to the principles of natural justice, let alone common sense. It is my opinion that there is a difference between the conduct of on court officials and game day officials. The primary difference is that we vest on court officials with the discretion to use their judgment in the calling of the game. That discretion involves the possibility of mistakes. It is not appropriate to protest the result of a game based on an error in judgment made by an on court official. However, we do not vest our game day officials, such as game clock operators, with discretion. When their failure to perform their duties competently directly impacts the outcome of the game, as was the case in this instance, a protest is entirely appropriate and is hereby allowed. In its protest, King’s asks to be awarded a win on the basis that the foul shots made by the Lakeland player were the result of a shot that was taken after time should have expired had the game clock operator started the clock on time. While I appreciate their position, I do not feel that such a ruling would be appropriate as it is possible that the Lakeland player might have shot earlier and scored the tying or, even, winning points even if the clock had been started on time. Under the circumstances, the only fair outcome is to rule that the game be re-played in its entirety. It is my understanding that the result of this game may have playoff implications for both teams. I am mindful, however, that the schedule does not leave much room for a re-played game. Having looked at the schedule, this game will be re-played at Lakeland College on February 21, 2011, or at such earlier date as may be agreed to by both institutions. The expenses for the re-played game shall be apportioned as follows: 1. Game day expenses and officiating fees are to be covered by Lakeland; 2. Travel expenses are to be covered by King’s; Sincerely, Bill Hendsbee Postscript: Lakeland College Appeal
January 27, 2011 Alan Rogan Re: APPEAL OF COMMISSIONER’S RULING REGARDING THE OUTCOME OF A WOMEN’S BASKETBALL GAME PLAYED AT LAKELAND COLLEGE ON NOV. 19, 2010 BETWEEN LAKELAND COLLEGE AND THE KING’S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE The Appeal Tribunal that was formed to consider this matter, met on Thursday, Jan. 27, 2011. The case manager, Wade Kolmel, determined the format for the hearing which included a written submission from the appellant (Lakeland College), the original women’s basketball team protest, the ACAC Commissioner’s ruling of the King’s women’s basketball protest, and an email from R. Day, ACAC General Manager, explaining the rationale for the Commissioner’s ruling. With respect to the initial task of the Appeal Committee, (Article III, Section 4), the Appeal Tribunal found there was grounds for an appeal to be considered. In reaching a decision, the Appeal Tribunal recognized that errors were made by both the major and minor officials during the game in question, however, the Tribunal agreed with the appeal, in relation to the role of the ACAC Commissioner and the fact there was no evidence of a violation of the Operating Code. Furthermore, the Appeal Tribunal was very strong in its view that the major officials on the floor were in charge of the game and could have overruled the timekeeper but did not do so. The Appeal Tribunal, by unanimous decision, has determined to uphold the appeal brought forward by Lakeland. As a result, the women’s basketball game played on Nov. 19, 2010, final score, Lakeland 67 - King’s 62, will stand. The Appeal Tribunal would recommend that the ACAC Basketball Convenor/Sport Management Team review the incident with the game officials association and basketball schools minor officials, as a learning opportunity for future games. Respectfully,
|
|