[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I agree that the officials did not make the decision to play the game themselves. However, it was entirely the officials' collective judgment NOT to enforce travelling rules. This might be cause for discipline. I don't know. I'm just asking.

Chuck

I think the officials did the logical and correc thing. How many times have we officiated a game, especially early in our careers (when we are officiating every level of game we can schedule) where we are on a court in a church or community recreation center where the court surface is somewhat less than desirable and the players, as well as you and your partner are slip sliding away. Logic tells us that to penalize the players for an inadequate playing surface is not fair nor good for the game. To further illustrate my point, for the last two years, our 12 yr old's Toledo P&R team has played at a communtity recreation center with a court that a ice hockey game could be played on. The officials that the City of Toledo hires are not registered officials (not a good sign of things to come), and these officials called traveling everytime a poor player tried to stop and and his feet slid. After one game I asked them why they called traveling, their response was because it was traveling. When questioned about the floor surface, their response was the players had to live with their calls. Well, that is both a dad and an official venting a little bit there.

But getting back on focus here, I was more shocked that the court for the NIT game was in such poor condition, and why the game was played in the first place. The officials should be commended for doing the logical thing.