CA Open Championship (Boys)

APG

Jesus Christ mutant

IUgrad92

mutantducky wrote
Here is one video I could find but not of the play in question. BTW, from here you can't really tell but on TV it appears there was a foul. There was a two minute delay or so to work out the time and which is why the first FT was airballed in my opinion. player was frozen at the line. Just added to the drama! btw, Mater Dei is an amazing team.

Mater Dei falls in OT to Bishop O'Dowd in Open Division title game - LA Times

Or maybe it had something to do Red #1 disconcerting the free thrower. IMO, that should have been called.

mutantducky

I saw that too. I think the rules committee really needs to look at that because I see it called so inconsistency and often ignored.
I often see a player raise his hands up really fast. Makes it seem like a rebounding issue but really it is to distract the FT shooter. I'd rather have it clearer and more examples on when to call it because it seems to be all over the place. The players really don't know either what crosses the line.

mutantducky

We had a discussion earlier about black and white, literal reading of the rules, etc. There is the correct call but there can also by the RIGHT call. The right call can mean passing on a foul that could have been called.
By rule could the refs have called a T? Yes, they could have. But if you had watched the game as I did(and Nevada too I think) you would realize it would have gone against the spirit of the game. It would not have been the right way to end the game. I think Nevada(note-I may be wrong) was more in favor of the literal interpretation, by myself and others, thought you don't always call the game by the book. There are times when you don't call hand-checks and minor fouls.

ODog

mutantducky wrote
Streak ends | state, monarchs, scored - Sports - OC Varsity

"O’Dowd got the ball and there might have been a Dragons player who signaled for a timeout that O’Dowd did not have – a technical foul on the Dragons, if that is what happened and if the officials had seen that."

I'm stunned to see the linked article was written by a member of a legitimate media outlet. This excerpt you posted sounded like it was written by, at best, a high school student (if not a child), so I had to look.

But I guess that's in keeping with the writing style/officiating mindset of most of your posts.

Nevadaref

For the record, I believe in calling the game by the rules as written. That is the right way to officiate.

mutantducky

did you watch that game Nevada? I missed the first half but saw the second. I saw most of the previous game, the St Mary's one.
Listen, this may be a moot issue. Maybe the refs didn't see it, or maybe they saw it and thought but the time they granted it time would have run-out.
I'm just saying I'm glad it wasn't called.
I'll post a video when I can. It was on tv here statewide.

Nevadaref

mutantducky wrote
did you watch that game Nevada? I missed the first half but saw the second.

I did not see the end of the game. Had some other things going on.

mutantducky wrote
I saw most of the previous game, the St Mary's one.

What surprised me about the girls Open contest was that the CIF assigned a crew from the St. Mary's section to officiate it.

mutantducky

in the St Mary's game I thought there were a couple of strange calls and if anything they seemed to favor Mater Dei but I thought the officiating was good.
I was so impressed with Mater Dei's star player. Sorry, I don't know her name. The guard, dark haired girl. Crazy skill.

oh here she is. ha. She is going to LMU.
Divine sisterhood at No. 1 Mater Del -espnW

BillyMac

mutantducky wrote
By rule could the refs have called a T? .

No. You're skipping a step. First, the official should have granted the timeout. There is no provision in the rulebook, casebook, or the mechanics manual, for an official to ignore a legal request for timeout out just because the official knows that the team has used their last timeout.

Second, after the official scorekeeper confirms that the team has used an excess timeout, the technical foul is charged, but only after the timeout is granted, and used.

rockyroad

You know, there was this college game a few years back where this guy named Chris Weber was playing with these other 4 really good players from Michigan, and wouldn't you know it, he tried to call a timeout thingy when they didn't have any timeout thingys left.

Good thing for him the refs just chose to ignore his request, cause it was just too good of a game to end with...wait. What? The refs did give him the timeout? And called a T??????

Why those dirty basturds. I bet they got run out of town and never worked another big college game in their...what??? They did???

Never mind.

BillyMac

rockyroad wrote
You know, there was this college game a few years back where this guy named Chris Weber was playing with these other 4 really good players from Michigan, and wouldn't you know it, he tried to call a timeout thingy when they didn't have any timeout thingys left.

Good thing for him the refs just chose to ignore his request, cause it was just too good of a game to end with...wait. What? The refs did give him the timeout? And called a T??????

Why those dirty basturds. I bet they got run out of town and never worked another big college game in their...what??? They did???

Never mind.

Hey. That's my schtick.

Note: Well done rockyroad.

Rich

rockyroad wrote
You know, there was this college game a few years back where this guy named Chris Weber was playing with these other 4 really good players from Michigan, and wouldn't you know it, he tried to call a timeout thingy when they didn't have any timeout thingys left.

Good thing for him the refs just chose to ignore his request, cause it was just too good of a game to end with...wait. What? The refs did give him the timeout? And called a T??????

Why those dirty basturds. I bet they got run out of town and never worked another big college game in their...what??? They did???

Never mind.

This would be a really easy decision for me on the floor. Like I've said to others, this isn't football, where we're expected to ignore the request.

mutantducky

yes but there was 11 seconds to go in the C-Webb game. I said if there had been more time then then it would have likely been granted.
In this situation, it was off a miss, a player without the ball. And pretty much everyone else thinking the time had run out. Maybe one second to go.
My point is, if the refs had seen the TO request, the right thing to do was to ignore it and let the game be rather than a horrible ending which that would have been.

APG

mutantducky wrote
My point is, if the refs had seen the TO request, the right thing to do was to ignore it and let the game be rather than a horrible ending which that would have been.

An ending made "horrible" due to a player's/coach's mental mistake.

BillyMac

mutantducky wrote
... the right thing to do was to ignore it ...

rockyroad

some people just don't get it...

Nevadaref

mutantducky wrote
yes but there was 11 seconds to go in the C-Webb game. I said if there had been more time then then it would have likely been granted.
In this situation, it was off a miss, a player without the ball. And pretty much everyone else thinking the time had run out. Maybe one second to go.
My point is, if the refs had seen the TO request, the right thing to do was to ignore it and let the game be rather than a horrible ending which that would have been.

Please post the CIF Section in which you officiate so that they can be contacted and told that you are in need of additional training.

Raymond

mutantducky wrote
I saw that too. I think the rules committee really needs to look at that because I see it called so inconsistency and often ignored.
I often see a player raise his hands up really fast. Makes it seem like a rebounding issue but really it is to distract the FT shooter. I'd rather have it clearer and more examples on when to call it because it seems to be all over the place. The players really don't know either what crosses the line.

If you call it the first time it happens you won't have worry about where that threshold is the rest of the game. 😉

Adam

mutantducky wrote
if you watched the game I think you'd have agreed with me.
Again, like I said, it was very quick from the TO request and the end of regulation. Maybe the refs didn't see it. IDK. But absolutely it was the right move to ignore the T if that was the case as it would have meant a Technical foul with maybe .5 seconds left or something.

It was a good game with a fitting end.

I don't need to see the game to know that the idea of an official ignoring a timeout request to avoid a technical foul is a horrible idea.