Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55
Could really care less about whether it was or was not GT.
What I do care about are:
1. If there was ever a time to sell a call by the T, this was it. Instead he waived his hand as though he just saw his grandma in the third row.
2. Really have to do a better job getting the coaches and teams corralled. Easier said then done.
3. With a nod to both 1 and 2, this is why we need 3-person crews. A stable slot official moving back and forth with more control amid the chaos of the moment would have had a much better look at this play. And regardless of how it would have been called, chances are it would have been more believable. Not to mention the clock then could have been managed better, and perhaps coach histrionics held in check. All worth the extra $100 or whatever progressive CT pay rate BillyMac always brags about. The CIAA and the cheapskate coaches and administrators who perpetuate this 2-person butt soup have only themselves to blame for an outcome like this. I feel zero sympathy.
|
I can't help but agree. 2-person crews in transition, which this situation was, are often in bad positions to call the play. That is why Trail made the call but didn't really sell it. Perhaps Lead also called goaltending, which he had to call because trail wasn't in good position. I would have been more emphatic with scoring the goal, maybe even moving towards the play to make it look like I was closer.
On a 3-person crew, C would have been in a decent position near the free throw line extended to see goaltending. He would also have been in position to turn around and address the coach who was trying to enter the floor if tableside, or to come across the floor to intercept if opposite the table.