Kim Mulkey at it again

[ilyazhito]

I didn't see a foul in the corner. The shooter went up and down without a hitch. It looked as though the defender ran towards the shooter, but the play did not rise to the level of a foul. I'd say something along the lines of "shooter landed on her own".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am still confused. What is the consequence of the mask?

Unclear communication, both oral communication and body language (facial expression). In my post I was pointing out that some masked officials had, while reporting fouls, resorted to pointing to benches to supplement (and clarify) their oral communication of the color of the offending team, a trick most of us learned over many years officiating at The American School For The Deaf (with a deaf scorekeeper), but frowned upon as an irritant in "hearing" games.

[CJP]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I didn't see a foul in the corner. The shooter went up and down without a hitch. It looked as though the defender ran towards the shooter, but the play did not rise to the level of a foul. I'd say something along the lines of "shooter landed on her own".

Right or wrong, from the coaches perspective there was a perceived foul. Either way, she got the T she deserved.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I was just wondering if they were reviewing it for the timing of that collision compared to the timing of the technical foul.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I was also wondering if they were checking whether blue's contact was intentional. Did Blue have time to avoid white and still chose to run into her? Did blue "launch" ... at white? Both questions raised while first watching the video and, given apparent higher tensions, worthy of a look. Neither official was watching that area when the contact happened.

Agree, worthy of a discussion.

In my high school game, if I saw it, I would be unsure of intentional, might depend on what happened in the previous thirty-eight and a half minutes, and of course, we don't have access to a game monitors in high school for such situations. I had to view the video several times to decide that the contact was a split second after the technical foul whistle, and thus during a dead ball, a very split second. Of course the whistle may have trailed the act that caused as technical foul to be charged.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Did the official stop a Kentucky fast break to charge the technical foul?

Since nobody else seems to want to discuss it, I will break the ice.

This was not a classic number advantage fast break, more of a "slow break", but the Kentucky player that received the pass left of the lane had a wide open jump shot. Kentucky never seemed to "pull back" to set up their half court offense. Of course, with the score as it was, Kentucky would have just been happy to play "stall ball" to run down the shot clock, certainly not in a hurry to score unless it's a 100% sure thing (uncontested layup).

NFHS 10.5.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Unclear communication, both oral communication and body language (facial expression). In my post I was pointing out that some masked officials had, while reporting fouls, resorted to pointing to benches to supplement (and clarify) their oral communication of the color of the offending team, a trick most of us learned over many years officiating at The American School For The Deaf (with a deaf scorekeeper), but frowned upon as an irritant in "hearing" games.

What I am saying is they called a technical on the bench, which often does not come with a number or you have to clarify who that person is. I will and seen others point to the bench just like we point to the bench on a warning we give because of the actions of someone on the bench. You tend to find these things no one is talking about, so what is why I was confused about what you were addressing. The mask probably has nothing to do with it but making it clear that is who is getting the T.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What I am saying is they called a technical on the bench, which often does not come with a number or you have to clarify who that person is ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know this past year I was saying things I would have never said because of having a mask on.

The post directly above was the one that got me thinking, not realizing it was just about technical fouls. To paraphrase JRutledge words, I know that this past year some of our local officials were doing things (pointing to bench while reporting fouls for color clarity) that they would have never done because of having a mask on.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The post directly above was the one that got me thinking, not realizing it was just about technical fouls. To paraphrase JRutledge words, I know that this past year some of our local officials were doing things (pointing to bench while reporting fouls for color clarity) that they would have never done because of having a mask on.

Everything is not about what you locally do. I am just saying if they T'd the bench it is common to point to the bench when that is happening. You do not likely see that on a foul on the floor with the players. I cannot speak for what folks you know do in the association you belong to. These officials are not likely from there.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... I am just saying if they T'd the bench it is common to point to the bench when that is happening. You do not likely see that on a foul on the floor with the players.

... not likely, fully agree, but some of our guys unilaterally decided to use it as a clarifying "work around" while wearing voice obstructing masks, a creative and brilliant "work around" (though not formally "approved") possibly learned while dealing with deaf scorekeepers.

I myself have many times used the "point mechanic" while officiating at The American School For The Deaf. Didn't need it in my "masked" (hearing) middle school games over the past two years, with small middle school crowds, and my loud, projecting, baritone "teacher" voice, but some of my "masked" varsity friends (especially female officials) found the "point mechanic" useful in their often crowded and loud high school varsity games.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my high school game, if I saw it, I would be unsure of intentional, might depend on what happened in the previous thirty-eight and a half minutes, and of course, we don't have access to a game monitors in high school for such situations. I had to view the video several times to decide that the contact was a split second after the technical foul whistle, and thus during a dead ball, a very split second. Of course the whistle may have trailed the act that caused as technical foul to be charged.

So I watched it again, but assumed that there was no technical foul charged, just looked at the "train wreck" collision.

Is this a screen (delaying or preventing an opponent from reaching a desired position), or is this guarding (placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent)? Does it matter? With both screening and guarding a moving opponent (without the ball), time and distance are factors to be considered. In either case, White did not give Blue time and distance. Blocking foul.

Just looking at Blue, she had her head turned to her left (didn't see it coming) just before the collision, so in my opinion, no intentional foul here. A player who is screened outside her visual field may make contact and if running rapidly, the contact may be severe, especially with no time and distance given by the screener.

Can one illegally "blow through" an already illegal screen (or illegal guarding)?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This was not a classic number advantage fast break, more of a "slow break", but the Kentucky player that received the pass left of the lane had a wide open jump shot. Kentucky never seemed to "pull back" to set up their half court offense. Of course, with the score as it was, Kentucky would have just been happy to play "stall ball" to run down the shot clock, certainly not in a hurry to score unless it's a 100% sure thing (uncontested layup).

My high school opinion, official made the correct call at the correct time. It would have been nice for him to wait another second, or two, but considering the time, the score, and Kentucky's probable strategy (short of an uncontested layup), it was the correct call at the correct time.

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Why did we go from discussing a coach receiving a deserved technical foul in a women's college game to discussing officials' standards of attire? Oh well, BillyMac is being BillyMac again.

Yes sir. You nailed it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

Yes sir. You nailed it.

... and I agree. However, did you note my on-topic (high school) contributions to this thread regarding the timelines of the technical foul call (my very first comment in the thread, and so far, the only one to discuss it), the possibility of an intentional foul on the collision (replied to and discussed with Raymond and bob jenkins), and the impact of wearing a mask while officiating (only after JRutledge broached the topic)? I didn't think it necessary to expound on the actual technical foul itself because I thought that it was very apparent to all that it was much deserved, thus causing me to branch out to other things that I spotted in the video. On the other hand, I can see how my on-topic contributions could have gotten lost in the shuffle, with my off-topic musings (coach fashion and official fashion) causing some to not read my on-topic comments. It's a chance that I'm willing to take. It appears that some read my off-topic musings, since some respond negativity to them. It also appears that Forum members respond to my on-topic posts (even those hidden in a sea of off-topic posts), because they respond with agreement, disagreement, criticism, clarification, etc.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... and I agree. However, did you note my on-topic (high school) contributions to this thread regarding the timelines of the technical foul call (my very first comment in the thread, and so far, the only one to discuss it), the possibility of an intentional foul on the collision (replied to and discussed with Raymond and bob jenkins), and the impact of wearing a mask while officiating (only after JRutledge broached the topic)? I didn't think it necessary to expound on the actual technical foul itself because I thought that it was very apparent to all that it was much deserved, thus causing me to branch out to other things that I spotted in the video. On the other hand, I can see how my on-topic contributions could have gotten lost in the shuffle, with my off-topic musings (coach fashion and official fashion) causing some to not read my on-topic comments. It's a chance that I'm willing to take. It appears that some read my off-topic musings, since some respond negativity to them. It also appears that Forum members respond to my on-topic posts (even those hidden in a sea of off-topic posts), because they respond with agreement, disagreement, criticism, clarification, etc.

You're unnecessarily wordy response only proves the point that was being made.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Was all this seriously necessary?

I am not known to back down from a challenge. Everyone here knows that. They also know that I will admit mistakes, and often apologize for such. My posts in this thread were not, in my opinion, mistakes. Others may have a different opinion, which is fine with me, but those differing opinions will not go unchallenged by me.

Originally Posted by Raymond

You're unnecessarily wordy response only proves the point that was being made.

I will never disagree that many of my posts are "wordy", thus no need for proof, I agree.