D3 Player Takes Cheap Shot

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

My point has nothing to do with not "beating the tape," but I'm not surprised you are incapable or unwilling to comprehend that. You don't have a valid response to my argument so you bring in stuff that was never the issue to begin with. No one on this thread has suggested that it is not important to "beat the tape"; that is something you made up.

Par for the course, I reckon.

I simply do not agree with your position. It is OK to accept that your position means nothing to me. I do not work for you. I do not have to work with you. I do not have to answer to you (about anything). So if you feel you should call something because in your mind, "They are only worried about the player that is hurt..." BS, then go with that one. I have experienced coaches caring about a lot of things that we think would not be obvious. I am good with my position. You will eventually get over it!!! (Well maybe not)

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I simply do not agree with your position. It is OK to accept that your position means nothing to me. I do not work for you. I do not have to work with you. I do not have to answer to you (about anything). So if you feel you should call something because in your mind, "They are only worried about the player that is hurt..." BS, then go with that one. I have experienced coaches caring about a lot of things that we think would not be obvious. I am good with my position. You will eventually get over it!!! (Well maybe not)

Peace

Your God complex is showing.

Another red herring from Rut. Guess I will never learn.

[Raymond]

Can someone recap the 2 sides of this debate so I can decide which side I'm on? I've lost track of what this discussion is about.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Can someone recap the 2 sides of this debate so I can decide which side I'm on? I've lost track of what this discussion is about.

Rich said that he would rule a F2 technical.

I replied and said I would rule a F2 personal since that ball was not entirely through the net, but I acknowledged that it was very close and at the end of the day wouldn't be a huge deal (since the penalty is the same except for potentially the shooter and the throw-in spot).

Rich also acknowledged that it was very close and without a monitor he would understand why officials may error on the personal/technical aspect of this play.

JRut then went on a tangent and said that the ball wasn't even close to being dead and basically implied that it would be the end of the world if you ruled an F2TF on this instead of an F2PF. Said coaches would complain and you have to "beat the tape" which no one disputed, but not really relevant to the discussion. I responded that many officials don't even understand the difference between the two fouls, what makes you think the average coach would know? As long as the player is ejected and the offended team gets two FTs and the ball, no one will lose sleep. He implied that it is worse to rule the ball dead when it is actually live than vice-versa, then when asked to defend his point he didn't. Then he implied I didn't care about "beating the tape" and spilled off his resume, again not even addressing the irrelevance/illogicality of his points.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

JRut then went on a tangent and said that the ball wasn't even close to being dead and basically implied that it would be the end of the world if you ruled an F2TF on this instead of an F2PF. Said coaches would complain and you have to "beat the tape" which no one disputed, but not really relevant to the discussion. I responded that many officials don't even understand the difference between the two fouls, what makes you think the average coach would know? As long as the player is ejected and the offended team gets two FTs and the ball, no one will lose sleep. He implied that it is worse to rule the ball dead when it is actually live than vice-versa, then when asked to defend his point he didn't. Then he implied I didn't care about "beating the tape" and spilled off his resume, again not even addressing the irrelevance/illogicality of his points.

I said the ball was not clearly dead and probably would only be determined by looking a the replay (which they did not have) or clearly seeing this live. And yes you have to beat the tape if you are calling something based off of something you did not see live. Just like "hook and hold" plays, you have to be right.

I also disagree with the premise of what a coach might not say. That is you projecting to know what coaches will or will not do at this or all levels.

And if you saw the coach's tape that showed a situation right before this foul called on the play, it is possible a coach would care that you did not take care of something before this happened. There was a situation with these two players right before the incident that is posted. The coach might have felt that the officials handled the entire situation poorly and this is why this happened. There might be more plays where things were not handled correctly by the officials in the coach's opinion. It would not be the first time that

I also did not say a thing about my resume'. I did not say what level I worked or what level I did not work. I do work college ball, but that is very general and very not specific. Even that matters little if you live in certain areas because not everyone can work all levels of college unless they want to go 5 hours one way for a game. I did give a story of the level of the game I referenced I worked yesterday illustrating how petty coaches can be even when you are doing the right thing. I said you keep talking about a level you have said you did not work in the past. That means that you may not be aware of what is asked of officials at this level. We are not talking about high school basketball where the details might not matter, because the basketball coach is likely the math teacher too. A college coach is living for every moment in the game because he or she might not live in that community next year if they do not win or recruit the right kids. This kid on the team could be a reflection of the coach too. So yes, they might care if some guy does not enforce the rules properly even if it is close. Honestly, I was not speaking to you when I said this, I was speaking to those that want to work these games and think "No one will care" and they will quickly show you how much they care or it might matter to you personally.

Heck, tonight is our season start, better not say that it is my 23rd year of basketball officiating and working a tournament. God Forbid that people talk about those things when talking about what happens with us personally because people like you will think that is talking about your resume'.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Your God complex is showing.

Another red herring from Rut. Guess I will never learn.

God complex?

Did I not say that I work for someone that would not agree with you? If I was God, then why would I not just do whatever the hell I wanted to do regardless of what others say (you are not in that equation BTW)? Yes. I feel that we should do what is expected by the people we work for. Again, you do not work Men's college ball, do you? If I was God I would remember this fact, but I honestly do not care but find it odd that someone that does not even work Men's college ball knows so much about what should be done at a level they do not work.

Do you work for anyone that is a D1 official as your supervisor? Well, I do. Actually, I work for 2 people that fit that description. And that means that they know what having a monitor does to the game and they realize that they have officials that never will get a chance to look at a monitor. That means that you cannot just say, "Well no one will care because...." when the damn play might only be seen clearly with a monitor. Because the only thing that even makes it clear that the ball is live or dead is if you see this on replay. If you see it live, it is very possible that element (very important one) is not clear or even obvious. But hey, you know right. I am saying that this is a tough play and for some reason I have a God complex because I suggest that we go with what we can prove at the time of the play, not on replay. Last time I checked the two people advocating what to do in this situation, do not even work the level they are discussing. Isn't that what you say to a certain person that always has something to say about varsity basketball? Why is this different?

Again, do you even work this level of ball? Because when I am in pre-game meetings with partners that work high levels of ball than me, it is funny how they say the very same things I am saying here. Beat the damn tape. They do not care what just happened to the player, they care about what they can prove.

Peace

[LRZ]

OK, as officials, we are supposed to have thick skin, but let's keep the argument civil and focused on the issues. There is enough animosity in the world.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by LRZ

OK, as officials, we are supposed to have thick skin, but let's keep the argument civil and focused on the issues. There is enough animosity in the world.

There is no animosity.

Rut brought red herrings into the discussion, then when asked to defend his points he couldn't and doubled down.

Writing a novel doesn't make you smart.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

God complex?

Did I not say that I work for someone that would not agree with you? If I was God, then why would I not just do whatever the hell I wanted to do regardless of what others say (you are not in that equation BTW)? Yes. I feel that we should do what is expected by the people we work for. Again, you do not work Men's college ball, do you? If I was God I would remember this fact, but I honestly do not care but find it odd that someone that does not even work Men's college ball knows so much about what should be done at a level they do not work.

Do you work for anyone that is a D1 official as your supervisor? Well, I do. Actually, I work for 2 people that fit that description. And that means that they know what having a monitor does to the game and they realize that they have officials that never will get a chance to look at a monitor. That means that you cannot just say, "Well no one will care because...." when the damn play might only be seen clearly with a monitor. Because the only thing that even makes it clear that the ball is live or dead is if you see this on replay. If you see it live, it is very possible that element (very important one) is not clear or even obvious. But hey, you know right. I am saying that this is a tough play and for some reason I have a God complex because I suggest that we go with what we can prove at the time of the play, not on replay. Last time I checked the two people advocating what to do in this situation, do not even work the level they are discussing. Isn't that what you say to a certain person that always has something to say about varsity basketball? Why is this different?

Again, do you even work this level of ball? Because when I am in pre-game meetings with partners that work high levels of ball than me, it is funny how they say the very same things I am saying here. Beat the damn tape. They do not care what just happened to the player, they care about what they can prove.

Peace

You work low-level college basketball. I've had a D1 supervisor before as well. You're not special. Get over yourself.