inboundpass.com - Covering Philippine college basketball / UAAP, NCAA, PCC

SCHOOLS from the two premier collegiate basketball leagues in the country are making an art out of putting games under protest.

Just a week and a half after College of Saint Benilde won its protest against San Beda College over Red Lions center Sam Ekwe’s mysterious tale of jersey-switching, it’s the turn of University of the East, which officially put its game against Far Eastern University under protest.

UE contends that a technical error occurred when FEU forward Marlon Adolfo’s shot was counted, a basket that put the Tamaraws within one, 61-62, with 3:03 left in the fourth quarter. It was the first of Adolfo’s two buzzer-beating baskets, the second being a corner trey that originally was announced by the coliseum barker as a two.

Apparently, Commissioner Almighty has until tonight (July 28, 2008) to decide on the issue. Should FEU’s 71-69 win be upheld, UE forfeits a P100,000 bond it posted for protesting a game (a new rule), but can still appeal to the UAAP board. If the Red Warriors win the battle of the boardroom, they get back their money and pull down the Tams in the team standings.

As a sidenote, contrast this bond to the $250 (roughly P11,000) tag FIBA issues to any team that puts a game under protest. Bizarre and silly, indeed. Should UE lose the protest, they can still appeal, but pay another P100,000 to the UAAP.

Obviously, UE feels aggrieved and has resorted to the rulebook and the rule of the commissioner to appease itself. At the same time, the UAAP rulebook permits such protests to be filed – in short, there’s nothing illegal about UE’s move.

However, despite being legal and all, isn’t it just irritating to have a game decided by a bunch of officials instead of jersey-donning student-athletes? The FEU-UE game was by far the game of the season, much more exciting than any other tiff. Both squads wanted to win. FEU was driven by emotion after the Mac Baracael shooting, its fighting heart clearly on display, while UE just wasn’t used to losing as many games in the regular season after sweeping the eliminations in Season 70.

Put simply, games like this don’t happen everyday.

Now, the result’s on hold, thanks to the protest. The game of the season will be won behind closed doors and the public eye. Its result won’t be in the form of a box score, but a written statement. The player of the game won’t be Benedict Fernandez anymore, but some legalistic clause.

I don’t think I need to comment on whether or not the protest is in bad taste. If I were one of UE’s top honchos, and felt that my team was on the losing end of some bad call (which happens a lot this season, by the way) or technical glitch or what have you, I’d put the game under protest without batting an eyelash.

This leads me to my point of contention. Remember, the FEU-UE game was played last Saturday, July 26. According to FEU Athletic Director Mark Molina, “UE signed the score sheet to keep its options on protesting open� after the game. However, Molina said this Sunday afternoon, in the middle of the Ateneo-National University game. In effect, UE had about 20 hours to think about making an official protest.

UAAP rules unfortunately allow this. The league gives teams a lot of time to formalize a protest. UE’s representative to the league board submitted the official protest letter last Sunday night, about 24 hours after the game.

Why the emphasis on the number of hours? It’s because, under part C of the FIBA rulebook, a team has a maximum of one hour after the game to submit a written documentation of the protest (clause C.2), and only 20 minutes after the final buzzer to make a team protest valid (clause C.1).

Twenty-four hours gives practically everyone on the team a chance to review the game tape and look for instances that may have affected the outcome of the ballgame. And surely, there’d be a lot, considering that even the best game officials make mistakes that may impact a game’s outcome. League rules hence defeat the true spirit of protest, where a coach or a team knows specifically what to contest.

Remember, basketball games should be won on the hardcourt. If a clear violation of any rule occurs, a protest must come into play. However, a “clear violation of any rule� should be identifiable by the aggrieved party right away, and this is translated by an on-the-spot protest, not one that’ll take hours of reflection.

Why not just adopt these FIBA clauses in cases of protests? Or will these clauses be met with a series of protests again?

Tags: Chito-Narvasa, CSB-Blazers, FEU-Tamaraws, Mac-Baracael, NCAA-Season-84, Petron, Sam-Ekwe, San-Beda-Red-Lions, UAAP, UE-Red-Warriors

Related posts

• San Beda, Ateneo open PCC Sweet 16 Round (33)
• UAAP All-Stars bag 2008 Bantay Bata title (53)
• Letran, USJ-R reach Sweet 16 Round (53)
• Alas wants to face the Red Lions in the Sweet 16 round (18)
• Jaguars, Knights debuted in the PCC Zonals with a Win (17)

Posted in Postgame