D3 Player Takes Cheap Shot

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have to speak for yourself on this one. I would be worried about this if it was not supported by the video. I want to beat the tape anytime I can. But this might very for who you work with or the coaches you encounter. I do not want to call something that I cannot completely support.

Are you naive enough to think the average coach knows the rules well enough to know whether this play is an F2PF or F2TF?

The offender was ejected and the offended team got two FTs and the ball-that is the only thing that a coach would care about.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Are you naive enough to think the average coach knows the rules well enough to know whether this play is an F2PF or F2TF?

Coaches complain about things that happen in games whether they know the rule or not. That was not the baseline of my position where I believe this is about what a coach knows. My point is that coaches often complain about things they "think" they know and if that little part influenced the game, they might complain. A dead ball technical in Men's college is 2 shots and the ball automatically.

Originally Posted by SC Official

The offender was ejected and the offended team got two FTs and the ball-that is the only thing that a coach would care about.

Coaches can be very petty, even at the college level. So you say that is all they care about, but I have seen coaches complain just because they do not like a particular coach. That is where the supervisor comes in to make sanity out of a situation, but they might care. And a supervisor might care more. So to say it does not matter is not really true.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Coaches complain about things that happen in games whether they know the rule or not. That was not the baseline of my position where I believe this is about what a coach knows. My point is that coaches often complain about things they "think" they know and if that little part influenced the game, they might complain. A dead ball technical in Men's college is 2 shots and the ball automatically.

Coaches can be very petty, even at the college level. So you say that is all they care about, but I have seen coaches complain just because they do not like a particular coach. That is where the supervisor comes in to make sanity out of a situation, but they might care. And a supervisor might care more. So to say it does not matter is not really true.

A contact dead ball technical is two shots and possession, and that's not really relevant to this situation.

This is either a flagrant 2 personal or technical, and it's two shots and possession regardless of whichever is ruled. What I am surprised by is that the offended player shot the FTs; I thought trainers had come out on the floor to check on him, which would have mandated a sub unless a TO was granted.

It's highly unlikely, in this instance, that any coach is going to throw a fit because the ball was thrown in at the 28-foot line rather than the division line, or vice-versa. Especially at the D3 level where the majority of coaches have less-than-stellar rules knowledge. Heck there are plenty of officials that can't even tell you the difference between F2 personal and technical fouls; you mean to tell me the average coach would be able to?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Heck there are plenty of officials that can't even tell you the difference between F2 personal and technical fouls; you mean to tell me the average coach would be able to?

I am going to keep saying this until it sinks in. I do not care what the coach ultimately thinks. But if the coach says something to the supervisor, that person might actually care how you administered the rule. The supervisor might care if you actually called something that does not show up on tape. The supervisor actually might care who made the call an why. The coach just might be the person that bitches initially about the situation which would not be just about this play. I bet if you did not call something earlier in the game that might be something that gets sent to the supervisor for review. I would also as a crew or Referee have to give a report to the supervisor as to what happened. And depending on the level, this might have to be filed to the National Organization (NAIA and JUCO require ejection reports filed to them directly). Forgive me, I like to be right when those things take place and those reports. This is not high school where maybe the assignor even cares or even the state cares little about this or never contacts you about the report you file. I do not like to administer things that did not happen or did not follow the rule just because, "No one will notice" at the college level particularly. And this is not a slam dunk dead ball situation, which I would rather not rule on without being sure. I had to slow it down to even have a debate in the first place. I do not give a flying farfonickle what the darn coach does in this situation ultimately during or after the game. But my conversation after the game is not going to be with the coach. It will be with my supervisor on some level and not all supervisors just say, "I really do not care because you threw out the kid..." type of people.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to keep saying this until it sinks in. I do not care what the coach ultimately thinks. But if the coach says something to the supervisor, that person might actually care how you administered the rule. The supervisor might care if you actually called something that does not show up on tape. The supervisor actually might care who made the call an why. The coach just might be the person that bitches initially about the situation which would not be just about this play. I bet if you did not call something earlier in the game that might be something that gets sent to the supervisor for review. I would also as a crew or Referee have to give a report to the supervisor as to what happened. And depending on the level, this might have to be filed to the National Organization (NAIA and JUCO require ejection reports filed to them directly). Forgive me, I like to be right when those things take place and those reports. This is not high school where maybe the assignor even cares or even the state cares little about this or never contacts you about the report you file. I do not like to administer things that did not happen or did not follow the rule just because, "No one will notice" at the college level particularly. And this is not a slam dunk dead ball situation, which I would rather not rule on without being sure. I had to slow it down to even have a debate in the first place. I do not give a flying farfonickle what the darn coach does in this situation ultimately during or after the game. But my conversation after the game is not going to be with the coach. It will be with my supervisor on some level and not all supervisors just say, "I really do not care because you threw out the kid..." type of people.



Peace

Either it's a live ball foul or a dead ball foul. You're either right or wrong. But you seem to be saying it's worse to call this a dead ball foul and be wrong than vice versa.

That makes no sense at all.

Rignt is right, wrong is wrong, and without a monitor nobody has the exact timing on this. It's a best guess from this crew, one which appears to be correct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[SC Official]

JRut, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. No one disputed that getting the adjudication right should be a priority.

My point has been, and still is, that this ball is close enough to being dead (it's in the freaking net when the hit occurs, not sure why you can't grasp that) that no supervisor worth his salt is going to harp on whether this is ruled a personal or technical foul. They are going to focus on the important issue: that the offender was ejected from the game. There are assigners that probably don't even know what the technically correct administration is on this play.

Yes, the ball is live. Yes, the correct ruling is an F2 personal foul. And it looks like they administered it as such. No one is disputing that you (and I) are correct in our ruling. We are only saying that it is close enough that, as long as the offender is ejected and the offended team gets 2 shots and the ball, it is petty to focus on whether the throw-in was technically at the right spot or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

JRut, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. No one disputed that getting the adjudication right should be a priority.

I am not actually making anything out of this. You are the one trying to convince me of your process. You can do what you like. I personally do not care. Just telling you what I would do (based only on the very limited information we have in this video). And it is not like we work for the same people that tell us how to handle situations without monitors. I thought you did not even do Men's college?

Originally Posted by SC Official

My point has been, and still is, that this ball is close enough to being dead (it's in the freaking net when the hit occurs, not sure why you can't grasp that) that no supervisor worth his salt is going to harp on whether this is ruled a personal or technical foul. They are going to focus on the important issue: that the offender was ejected from the game. There are assigners that probably don't even know what the technically correct administration is on this play.

I do not think you can grasp what I said. I was not asking how close it was. I was asking to be sure. BTW, there is a better view of the play online by an official that puts out good content. Not the cropped view. I even said I would like to see the entire play. And the play in question might not be as clear live. Remember, they have no monitor (very unlikely). This might actually be only one official that sees the picture here in real time. We did not even know if the official saw the play and not only did he see it, he clearly was calling the Flagrant Foul at the spot. You are judging this by watching a video and likely slowing it down or seeing it over and over again. That official had one shot and it is not even clear if the C saw the play or had a different picture or information.

Originally Posted by SC Official

Yes, the ball is live. Yes, the correct ruling is an F2 personal foul. And it looks like they administered it as such. No one is disputing that you (and I) are correct in our ruling. We are only saying that it is close enough that, as long as the offender is ejected and the offended team gets 2 shots and the ball, it is petty to focus on whether the throw-in was technically at the right spot or not.

You keep talking about what coaches think, but do not see I do not give a damn about what any coach thinks in this conversation. I made that rather clear if you were paying attention.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not actually making anything out of this. You are the one trying to convince me of your process. You can do what you like. I personally do not care. Just telling you what I would do (based only on the very limited information we have in this video). And it is not like we work for the same people that tell us how to handle situations without monitors. I thought you did not even do Men's college?



I do not think you can grasp what I said. I was not asking how close it was. I was asking to be sure. BTW, there is a better view of the play online by an official that puts out good content. Not the cropped view. I even said I would like to see the entire play. And the play in question might not be as clear live. Remember, they have no monitor (very unlikely). This might actually be only one official that sees the picture here in real time. We did not even know if the official saw the play and not only did he see it, he clearly was calling the Flagrant Foul at the spot. You are judging this by watching a video and likely slowing it down or seeing it over and over again. That official had one shot and it is not even clear if the C saw the play or had a different picture or information.



You keep talking about what coaches think, but do not see I do not give a damn about what any coach thinks in this conversation. I made that rather clear if you were paying attention.

Peace

I must not be able to grasp your point because there isn't one. Or maybe because I don't work as many low-level college games as you.

Oh well.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

JRut, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. No one disputed that getting the adjudication right should be a priority.

My point has been, and still is, that this ball is close enough to being dead (it's in the freaking net when the hit occurs, not sure why you can't grasp that) that no supervisor worth his salt is going to harp on whether this is ruled a personal or technical foul. They are going to focus on the important issue: that the offender was ejected from the game. There are assigners that probably don't even know what the technically correct administration is on this play.

Yes, the ball is live. Yes, the correct ruling is an F2 personal foul. And it looks like they administered it as such. No one is disputing that you (and I) are correct in our ruling. We are only saying that it is close enough that, as long as the offender is ejected and the offended team gets 2 shots and the ball, it is petty to focus on whether the throw-in was technically at the right spot or not.

Time to give up. He's not going to hear either one of us. No reason to be surprised, either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Time to give up. He's not going to hear either one of us. No reason to be surprised, either.

I hear you, I do not agree with you. It is that simple. No need to complicate this.

Peace