Can't confirm this but I read (from some online comments from someone who was there) that 2 Ts and 51 PFs were whistled....so it would appear they were calling something.

This article in the IndyStar mentions three technicals and two double fouls.

Lots and lots of conjecture here.
 

So they suspended boys teams last year and it got overturned in court. It would seem reasonable/plausible this year that when the girls teams show up wanting the same thing from the court that (UNLESS the governing body was overturned last year for a technical reason that they've changed) the ladies would get theirs overturned as well.

If it gets to a point where this reaction has been overturned multiple times at what point does the governing body stop trying to shut down seasons as a consequence. Or do they stick to their guns and keep requiring people to take them to court.

If we're going to get legal and technical about it. The suspension last year wasn't overturned by a court. A temporary injunction was placed that said they had to let the teams play while the issue was resolved in the courts. The appeal won't be heard until next month.

Without knowing the *actual* legal reason given by the court, it is impossible to speculate on what will happen in another situation and whether the two are going to have the same result. Nor do we know if there were changes to the governing rules that occurred as a result of the court rejecting the cancellation of the season. Moreover, decisions of a trial court are not binding on another trial court any more than what "last week's" referee called is binding on today's referee, so there is also know certainty that a different trial judge is going to have the same opinion even on similar facts.

One of the elements courts entertain in deciding whether to issue an injunction is likelihood of success on the merits. So the judge issuing the injunction would have to have determined, in exercising his discretion, that there was some level of likelihood the players would win their claims. Judges also consider the concept of irrevocable harm -- that the players losing their chance to play, which could never be restored if they prevailed in their claims later, would certainly meet that standard. Without an explicit ruling from the judge (I didn't see it in a quick look, but it may or may not be available), it is impossible to know exactly how the judge weighed these and other factors in granting the injunction that let the teams continue to play. (Hmm, I'll be this is discussed in a thread from last year, too, but I('m too lazy to look for it.)

You're right. My mistake. It's pretty clear that there is a LOT of responsibility to be parceled out to various parties in this incident - players, coaches, parents, administrators - but the one group we should NOT question or suspect was part of the problem are the game officials.

It is obvious that they did a fine job in applying the rules of the game in a fair manner to achieve a successful conclusion. #jobwelldone

So...are you just being a snarky jackass or do you actually believe this crap?

You obviously have not paid attention to some of his past posts. ;)

Hell, I hadn't even read the article. Your statement that "99% of problems occur in a basketball game from the officials NOT blowing the whistle enough" is pure hyperbole, even if it was true in this game.

Of course, BNR asks a good question:

And Altor provides a great answer:

I don't see anything there that can reasonably give you, or anyone, the impression that the officials were not calling enough fouls.

Of course, if you walk in with a preconceive bias against the game officials, you could certainly get that impression if you ignore 75% of the quote you cling to.

If your first instinct is to blame the officials in spite of the evidence, you're going to get some negative responses from a group of officials.