Kim Mulkey at it again

[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.

[BillyMac]

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.

I'm actually mad at myself because this (below) got lost in the shuffle.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Discussion?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm actually mad at myself because this (below) got lost in the shuffle.







Discussion?

I responded to that post. Go ahead put in your two cents.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

Originally Posted by Raymond

I responded to that post.

I can't find it on the Forum, maybe on a different site, or maybe I'm not looking hard enough?

Also, like Raymond and bob jenkins, I'm interested in discussing the dead ball collision in the lane.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also, like Raymond and bob jenkins, I'm interested in discussing the dead ball collision in the lane.

White defender in the lane attempts to set a screen on black 44, perhaps in an attempt to draw a team control foul. If play was still live, make your judgment regarding block/charge/no call, but I feel like she's still moving toward the opponent at the time of contact. Since the ball is dead due to the TF, this is nothing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Altor

Since the ball is dead due to the TF, this is nothing ...

... unless (high school rules) the illegal contact is intentional or flagrant.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... unless (high school rules) the illegal contact is intentional or flagrant.

In regards to this play, it is neither of those, as Altor is pointing out.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can't find it on the Forum, maybe on a different site, or maybe I'm not looking hard enough?



Also, like Raymond and bob jenkins, I'm interested in discussing the dead ball collision in the lane.

I wasn't really concerned about who the foul was on. I was just wondering if they were reviewing it for the timing of that collision compared to the timing of the technical foul.

But that would only matter if an official blew their whistle for the collision.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I wasn't really concerned about who the foul was on. I was just wondering if they were reviewing it for the timing of that collision compared to the timing of the technical foul.

But that would only matter if an official blew their whistle for the collision.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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" (probably too strong a word) at white? Both questions raised while first watching the video and, given apparent higher tensions, worth=y of a look. Neither official was watching that area when the contact happened.

[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.

[Altor]

Perhaps I'm just an old fogey who thinks this kind of conduct needs to be removed from all levels, but I'm looking for a reason to run her on that very first action.

NCAA-W Rule 10-15-1,2,3

It doesn't matter that the hand/fist didn't connect. She needs disqualified for fighting.

[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.