Indisputable nonsense

[TopicalTropical]

I am not a Gonzaga fan at all Dude.
The replay system is a joke. Why don't you address my points instead of doing what is all so common on this board and attack.
The replay system often takes way too long. The refs are looking like camera hogs out there and the game is being trashed making it a huge chore too watch when you combine it with the fouls at end of game situations. Did you watch the end of the Marshall game? It was horrible to watch.
The refs on the floor should not be doing the replays for the tournament. What if Ohio St had come back and won the game. What if say that Charleston player had made the 3 and then there was a foul one and one and Auburn sneaked the player on. It would have been way more controversial.

Now, why don't you pick a side. I am against the current replay system and there should be changes. Are you in favor of it?

[TopicalTropical]

At the end of the game, the refs are probably somewhat mentally tired as well. End game, big calls with thousands of fans yelling and TV cameras. Overall they do a great job of getting most calls right. But when it comes to those out of bounds plays, they too often fall for the indisputable BS. Take it away from the refs. They should not be in that position to watch the replay as they have so much more to deal with. Give it to an outside team.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

I am not a Gonzaga fan at all Dude.

Never said you were.

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

Why don't you address my points instead of doing what is all so common on this board and attack.

Says the person who has been a member since January 26th with all of 24 posts to his name. Your false generalization of “all so common” made me laugh. As if you’re speaking from some kind of authoritative wisdom about the culture of this forum. Gimme a break.

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

Now, why don't you pick a side. I am against the current replay system and there should be changes. Are you in favor of it?

There are pros and cons. Mostly pros. Yes, the Marshall ending was complicated, but those were game defining decisions. I’m glad they took the hard looks, even if unpopular.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TopicalTropical]

you said fanboy nonsense right after my post instead of addressing my point

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

you said fanboy nonsense right after my post instead of addressing my point

You misconstrue the definition of “fanboy.” This is a clear indication of an inexperienced forum member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TopicalTropical]

There you go again.
I've been posting lot longer than you despite what the current date says.

My criticism of the replay system and officials is absolutely connected to officiating. It is a valid topic of discussion and it should be addressed. What if Ohio St had come back and won the game? Just like the Charleston game the topic the readers would be seeing is how the refs screwed up.


So this is valid but my post isn't?
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...advancing.html

Because nobody here can do anything about your complaints. The purpose of this site is to help officials improve themselves. There isn't a thing about your post that helps any reader improve their ability to officiate.

Let's change things up. With the replays and end of games and fouling. I think it will help officials and the game. I might be wrong, but let's try some changes and see how it goes. Kind of like how the NIT is experimenting.
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...eds-fixed.html
Zach Lowe on The Basketball Tournament's innovative end-of-game rule

[deecee]

Says the guy with 28 posts.

I personally think replay has made most sports worse off due to their awful delays and most of the time not really changing anything.

[thedewed]

The Michigan Houston game was a mess, too many mistakes to count. Early, an out of bounds where Michigan goes over a Houston player on a rebound and as you see much of time, the Michigan guy hits the Houston guy's hand, so it should be out on Michigan, the outside rebounder, or a foul on him, and of course, they give it to Michigan. Particularly important these days, I guess, that instead of passing on the contact and just giving the ball to the inside rebounder, you have to call the foul if in the last minute or 2, because they will review, and can't turn it into a foul, so you can't pass on the contact and just give inside rebounder the possession.

At least 10 really wrong calls in this game, no dog in the hunt, but in the last minute to take the cake, an out of bounds review where a Houston player gathered the ball and fell out of bounds. Absolutely no question who it was out on, WHY REVIEW? The game was painful to watch from an officiating perspective, both ways, many block/charges called the wrong way, basically everything in the book. TOO MANY WHISTLES as well, 'and ones' where you had to watch the replay to see if there was any contact whatsoever.

Call what matters. A sign of a good to great official is someone that knows how to hold the whistle, see the entire play, and only blow the whistle when it creates an advantage. Another way they added to the whistle count, rebounding fouls where the 'fouled' team got the rebound with no interruption of flow. DON'T BLOW THE WHISTLE.

Rant over. NBA seems to have it figured out far better than the NCAA. I guess it's because they are full-time and get paid more? It is a huge gap.

I wrote this before finishing the game, the same official that had to review whether the ball was out of bounds on a player that possessed it and fell out of bounds passed on a clear travel on the last play of the game before the winning 3. I mean clear as day travel, right in front of him. Nice shot though.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

There you go again.
I've been posting lot longer than you despite what the current date says.

If true, that means you have been banned in the past and have now reincarnated under a different user name. Credibility = shot.

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

My criticism of the replay system and officials is absolutely connected to officiating. It is a valid topic of discussion and it should be addressed. What if Ohio St had come back and won the game? Just like the Charleston game the topic the readers would be seeing is how the refs screwed up.


So this is valid but my post isn't?
https://forum.officiating.com/basket...advancing.html

Because nobody here can do anything about your complaints. The purpose of this site is to help officials improve themselves. There isn't a thing about your post that helps any reader improve their ability to officiate..

Your post is fine, but don't expect it to get much traction. As Altor and Raymond said, people come here to talk about judgment, play calling, mechanics, rules, and from time to time other officials and their advancements, mistakes, etc. Your topic is more for the rules and competition committees. Whatever replay rules they ultimately dictate, we'll officiate accordingly. You might find a few folks on this forum who want to discuss this topic with you, but I don't think it will be many, and any that do will probably not post much after March (funny how that works that way).

[Altor]

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

Why don't you address my points instead of doing what is all so common on this board and attack.

Because nobody here can do anything about your complaints. The purpose of this site is to help officials improve themselves. There isn't a thing about your post that helps any reader improve their ability to officiate.

Shut it down.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by TopicalTropical

I am not a Gonzaga fan at all Dude.
The replay system is a joke. Why don't you address my points instead of doing what is all so common on this board and attack.
The replay system often takes way too long. The refs are looking like camera hogs out there and the game is being trashed making it a huge chore too watch when you combine it with the fouls at end of game situations. Did you watch the end of the Marshall game? It was horrible to watch.
The refs on the floor should not be doing the replays for the tournament. What if Ohio St had come back and won the game. What if say that Charleston player had made the 3 and then there was a foul one and one and Auburn sneaked the player on. It would have been way more controversial.

Now, why don't you pick a side. I am against the current replay system and there should be changes. Are you in favor of it?

So another one of these threads were somebody's complaining about the rules and think somebody in here is going to change it?

All these threads are for is so somebody can agree with you.

What advice do you have for officials to make them better with the rules that are currently in place?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

So another one of these threads were somebody's complaining about the rules and think somebody in here is going to change it?

It is possible, maybe not probable, but possible. I've submitted rule changes, in my case, NFHS rule changes (not NCAA), up through our IAABO chain of command (I believe that this also involves our state high school interscholastic sports governing body) all the way up to the NFHS rules committee and have been successful in getting a few of my NFHS rule changes implemented.

It was while posting here on the Forum that I noted the removal of the phrase "outside the cylinder" in the definition of goaltending (only four parameters instead of five). This made it impossible, in some cases, to differentiate goaltending from basket interference (we often ridicule nonofficials that don't know the difference). I sent the rule change (back to the original definition) up the chain of command and now the definition of goaltending has gone back to five parameters.

I've also submitted successful rule change suggestions regarding the "captain's defensive match-up" when multiple substitutes come into the game, and most recently, the clarification regarding the legal colors for compression shorts (the old rule was confusing, same color as uniform shorts, or same color as "uniform" (as the rule read at the time), which could have meant jersey, or shorts?). I suggested removing the term compression shorts (they're just short tights) from the rules since tights were now legal and already had well defined color restrictions.

It's not easy to submit such changes, there's a lot of paperwork involved. One has to submit the old rule, the new rule, a rationale for the change, and also submit any changes necessary in any, and all, related rules, penalties, and casebook plays.

I hold no particular title within my local IAABO board, I'm just a lowly "journeyman" official, but I was able to get three changes into the NFHS rulebook.

So go ahead and "think somebody in here is going to change" a NFHS rule. It is possible, I can verify that.

That being said, I know more about rocket science, or brain surgery, than I know about changing NCAA rules. Maybe changing NCAA rules is harder than playing darts with spaghetti? Maybe harder than a steel reinforced concrete wrapped diamond?