NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Sunday March 19

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What is incorrect? It was BI. If he had grabbed the rim and then tried to put the ball in the hole, I would agree with a T if no violation was called. But the violation clearly took place and I see nothing that suggest that this is a BI and a T in this specific play. There are plays you could call both, but not in this play unless you just want to prove you know the rule and be overly "technical."

I also did not say anything about the rule differences either. I would rule it the same way in both, but not relevant to my position. If there was a rebound and the player grabbed the rim and then tried to but the ball in the basket, then I would agree. That is not really what happened here. A violation was called and basically ended the play. I do not expect you to agree, but that is what I am doing.

Peace

He actually did tap the rebound to put it back in....they didn't blow the whistle until that happened.

Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad.

Let's try to not make it personal, and simply talk about rules and rulings.

That said ... Jeff sometimes says some things that make me scratch my head ... but I think claiming he doesn't know the rules is exceedingly inaccurate.

[bucky]

I am still confused as to why a T was not called on that play. While they may have called BI, any to some it is considered BI, the actions of the shooter grabbing the rim still have TF written all over it. Just don't understand why a TF was not called and why no one, that I recall, even mentioned it.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by bucky

... Just don't understand why a TF was not called and why no one, that I recall, even mentioned it.

Who would mention it?

The announcers? They don't even know what basket interference is, which is what was incorrectly called here. To them, everything is "goaltending" (i.e., the Northwestern play). They certainly wouldn't know that this is actually a technical foul.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by ODog

Who would mention it?

The announcers? They don't even know what basket interference is, which is what was incorrectly called here. To them, everything is "goaltending" (i.e., the Northwestern play). They certainly wouldn't know that this is actually a technical foul.

Think you are correct. I can understand how the NW play was missed. From my couch, about 10 feet from the TV, my first reaction was "Whoa, great block!" L probably wasn't looking up there and C/T certainly could simply have not seen it clearly. Now, the Lou rim grab, was obvious to the world. No one missed it in real time. If ever there is a TF, isn't a rim hang, rim grab to aid, etc. an obvious one that everyone knows, especially 4 (on floor crew including L and table alternate) stud D1 officials who probably have over 100 years of combined experience officiating? Don't fans/announcers/coaches/players all know that too? Obviously not, but it still amazes me that no coach/player/announcer/crew member said/indicated something.

Guess I will just take my amazement with me and after this thread, will never miss that call, lol.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

He actually did tap the rebound to put it back in....they didn't blow the whistle until that happened.

Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad.

Actually I know the rule quite well, but there is debate over the rules or what is expected. Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side. Because every game there is a discussion with partners about how we are going to handle the RA and how we give each other the information if the RA is involved. And there is a lot of conversation about when, how or if we do this. If you did this conversation would probably be more of something you would understand because this was a "debate" I love how you quote rules, but you never were in a single meeting where the rule was discussed. If you had, then you would realize that a lot of us are confused about what they want. The rule has been confusing and even tweaked because of that confusion.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, you clearly do not work college basketball on the Men's side.
Peace

Really? Rather than admit you were wrong, I guess it is easier to attack. If that is your criteria, I guess it is clear you don't even work basketball because if you did you wouldn't screw up so much stuff.

Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Really? Rather than admin you were wrong, I guess it is easier to attack. If that is your criteria, I guess it is clear you don't even work basketball because if you did you wouldn't screw up so much stuff.

Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing.

Actually again, you do not work a single college game or get the videos from the NCAA. Enough said.

Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually again, you do not work a single college game or get the videos from the NCAA. Enough said.

Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source.

Peace

I may not currently, but I have in the past. And if you think you're something special for working a few low level NCAA games, keep dreaming.

You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the videos suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again).


As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I may not currently, but I have in the past. And if you think you're something special for working a few low level NCAA games, keep dreaming.

I do not find anything special with it, just know the conversations are different. I also work with guys that work D1 in our leagues and there is conversation about how they do things and what they are told.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the video's suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again).

No I just take in everything that is stated into consideration. There are often contradictions in what they show in video and what they say at the meeting or what they put in writing. I go to a staff meeting every year and have the a debate over what is wanted and need clarifications from things either written, like what we do with post play (whether the post player is behind or on the side with a forearm). The rule was clear, but it was not practical to how the game was played. And we would have the rules presentation bring more questions

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it.

Yes, two hands on the ball handler was a dribbler was a foul. Constant touching on the dribbler was a foul as well. These were so much rules, that no one called them that way or even taught to call fouls that way. Granted, many of these things were not tactics either, but since they were not fouls in the rulebook, they were never called. But again, you will tell us that it was and if that is your story, stick to that. You are literally the only person I know that feels that way!!!

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, two hands on the ball handler was a dribbler was a foul. Constant touching on the dribbler was a foul as well. These were so much rules, that no one called them that way or even taught to call fouls that way. Granted, many of these things were not tactics either, but since they were not fouls in the rulebook, they were never called. But again, you will tell us that it was and if that is your story, stick to that. You are literally the only person I know that feels that way!!!

Peace

You're forgetful too. A lot of people have agreed with me on the fact that these were always fouls but just not being called correctly. Again, that was the whole point of the rule change...not to make something a foul that wasn't but to get it through some people's thick heads that they were not enforcing existing rules correctly. The NFHS and NCAA even said as much. Every time you bring that up, you just prove the NCAA/NFHS right in that some people (you) were just not understanding it. And being wrong with others doesn't make you right.