Matter of principle

In the PBA, game-related and player issues are settled by the commissioner who has full authority to pass judgment as an independent executive in a mandate given by the Board of Governors composed of representatives of team owners. The reason is logical. If you elevate a game-related or player issue to the Board, you not only undermine the authority and independence of the commissioner but you also make him a lameduck. Besides, at the Board level, each governor has a team interest to uphold - not that the governors don’t think league but realistically, you don’t want to create a situation where the Board makes a judgment on a game-related or player issue because individual interests are involved. You want to insulate the Board from such a ticklish predicament.

Imagine the mess if a team official disregards a ruling by the commissioner and protests a game-ending call to the Board. It’s a recipe for total chaos. The referees’ judgment on a buzzer-beater won’t be respected because it will be subject to appeal all the way to the Board. What will stop a team official from protesting a foul called in the last second of regulation to award free throws to decide the outcome? Allowing a protest to be elevated to the Board will make a mockery of such mechanisms as reviewing the video replay in the last two minutes and raising an issue of dispute to the commissioner.

The other day, the UAAP Board of Trustees ruled on an appeal by host school National University (NU) regarding a men’s senior basketball game protest previously denied by commissioner Ato Badolato. It concerned FEU’s 77-75 win over NU at the MOA Arena last Sunday. Tamaraw guard R. R. Garcia sank a layup at the buzzer and the referees ruled it came within time after reviewing a video replay. NU protested but Badolato upheld the outcome. Disregarding Badolato’s ruling, NU sought recourse from the Technical Committee made up of representatives from Ateneo, La Salle, UST, Adamson and NU. The Technical Committee begged off from making a ruling because of conflict of interest and brought the case up to the Board for adjudication.

* * *

For the record, the members of the UAAP Board are Nilo Ocampo and Junel Baculi of NU, Fr. Maximino Rendon and Ma. Luisa Isip of Adamson, Ricky Palou and Emmanuel Fernandez of Ateneo, Henry Atayde and Edwin Reyes of La Salle, Fr. Ermito de Sagon and Gigi Kamus of UST, Anton Montinola and Josie de Leon of FEU, Chancellor Dr. Caesar Saloma and Dean Ronualdo Dizer of UP and Carmelita Mateo and Rodrigo Roque of UE. If you research on the backgrounds of each Board member, you’ll find that most are academicians, administrative executives and alumni/alumnae officers. Only Baculi and Palou can be considered basketball experts because of their experience as players and coaches. So why make the Board decide on a game-related issue when most of the members aren’t basketball experts? This is precisely the reason why the Board hired an independent commissioner.

The Technical Committee should’ve taken the position of backing up Badolato instead of copping out and passing the ball to the Board. The issue should have never reached the Board in the first place.

The Board granted NU’s appeal on the basis that the video replay was inconclusive and unclear. In basketball, when the referees review the video on a disputed incident and find it inconclusive, they will revert to the original call made on the floor. That’s because a call must be made first before a review of the video is conducted. A referee cannot make a call and review the video because without a call, there is nothing to reverse or affirm.

The Board reviewed the same video as the referees in the FEU-NU game. The referees made a call based on what they saw. Why couldn’t the Board decide one way or the other? It was after all the same tape the referees and the Board reviewed. And why didn’t the Board even consult Badolato? Surely, if the Board wanted to make a thorough study on the incident, Badolato and the referees should’ve been summoned to express their views. Badolato has no interest to protect except the league’s integrity and his own. He couldn’t care less if FEU or NU won that game. His independence and authority should’ve been respected by the Board.

Asked for a comment on the Board ruling, Badolato deferred. “No comment,” he told The STAR yesterday. “It’s the UAAP Board. I’ll just have to live with it.”

Palou said it wasn’t the first time that something like this happened. “Vote was unanimous to replay,” he said. “The issue was raised to the Board level. In a case like this and as per rules of the UAAP, a member has the right to appeal to the Board if it is not content with the decision of the commissioner or the Technical Committee. This has happened before in a game between La Salle and UE then coached by Franz and Dindo (Pumaren).”

Dindo recalled the La Salle-UE dispute. “Cholo (Villanueva) made a shot for La Salle and sent it to overtime,” he said. “UE protested that final sequence when a timeout was given to La Salle and shot clock was reset. La Salle won in overtime but the commissioner and the Technical Committee reversed the game result and ruled that UE won in regulation. La Salle appealed to the Board which ordered a replay, overturning the commissioner’s decision.”

Franz spoke about it more. “It was in 2005 and La Salle played UE at the Loyola Center,” he said. “Cholo made a last second shot from the baseline. What’s funny was that last play, we practiced the night before, the last drill of our practice. We won in overtime but UE protested. The game was replayed and we beat UE again.” Asked if he agreed with the practice of raising game-related issues to the Board, Franz said, “It’s always been like that in the UAAP.”

As a matter of principle, raising a game-related or player issue to the UAAP Board for adjudication must be stopped to preserve the integrity of the league and the commissioner. The UAAP Board’s decision the other day wasn’t only unfair to FEU but also to Badolato.