Goaltending ???

[Nevadaref]

I see this as a good block.
The Lead actually has the best look as he is at the top of the FT semicircle when the play happens. The Trail is well into the backcourt.

I’m also going to point out that the Trail does a poor job of managing the clock.
He makes this call with 8.6 on the clock, but due to the loud gym, the time runs down to 5.5 before stopping. No time is restored after the stoppage and discussion. The Trail needs to look at the clock in a situation like this, if he has a whistle. He can’t just wave his arm. He needs to have knowledge of the clock. The final possession could have been different with three more seconds.

[crosscountry55]

Could really care less about whether it was or was not GT.

What I do care about are:

1. If there was ever a time to sell a call by the T, this was it. Instead he waived his hand as though he just saw his grandma in the third row.

2. Really have to do a better job getting the coaches and teams corralled. Easier said then done.

3. With a nod to both 1 and 2, this is why we need 3-person crews. A stable slot official moving back and forth with more control amid the chaos of the moment would have had a much better look at this play. And regardless of how it would have been called, chances are it would have been more believable. Not to mention the clock then could have been managed better, and perhaps coach histrionics held in check. All worth the extra $100 or whatever progressive CT pay rate BillyMac always brags about. The CIAA and the cheapskate coaches and administrators who perpetuate this 2-person butt soup have only themselves to blame for an outcome like this. I feel zero sympathy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

The (CIAC) and the cheapskate coaches and administrators who perpetuate this 2-person butt soup have only themselves to blame for an outcome like this.

The coaches aren't cheapskates. A small, but successful and vocal faction of the Connecticut Coaches Association believes that the extra official will lead to more fouls in their successful man to man, trapping full court press, fast break style programs. The athletic directors, principals, and the CIAC listens to them. The principals are the cheapskates.

The CIAC, a principal-centric organization, has mandated that early round games of the state tournament, both genders, and all school population classes, will be two person games. Quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals will be three person games. The state assigners (two genders, two state assigners) make rare exceptions and assign three person crews to a few early round state tournament games when they deem it necessary (powerhouse school rivalries). This was a round of eight game between two very small schools, from two different parts of the state (different conferences), that are not usually considered small school powerhouses.

Two problems in Connecticut regarding more three person games, regular season and post-season: First, the successful, vocal, and powerful faction of the Connecticut Coaches Association that don't want three person games. Second, the refusal of some (but certainly not all) of our six local IAABO boards (Connecticut is 100% IAABO, we have a single state-wide fee contract with annual automatic cost of living game fee increases based on average teacher cost of living increases) to accept a small per-official game fee cut for three person games, so some officials not willing to compromise on three person fees with cheapskate principals are a small part of the problem.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Normally one would like this goaltending call to be emphatically made, "Count the basket", by the trail. I think that he was temporally put off by the lead's whistle, and didn't want to count the basket until he checked with his partner (travel, etc.). By watching the Red team and their fans, even when the trail makes his decision, he doesn't announce it until he gets to the table, and it was never an emphatic signal. Once the trail made his decision, I would have liked him to take a step away from his partner to an open area on the court and emphatically "slam down" the two points, "Count the basket". And only then move toward the table to answer any polite questions from the White coach ... the trail's hesitancy and lack of a emphatic signal made his call look weak.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

If there was ever a time to sell a call by the T, this was it. Instead he waived his hand as though he just saw his grandma in the third row.

Agree with crosscountry55 that this call should have been "sold" and never really was.

However, how many times have we been encouraged not to give preliminary signals on double whistles? If the trail had immediately and emphatically "slammed down" the two points, "Count the basket", and then discovered that the lead called a travel (even though he put up a fist) before the goaltend (with a late whistle, but with the travel before the goaltend), then we'd be discussing a different type of problem.

That being said, once the crew made the decision that it was a goaltend, the trail certainly did not do a very good job of selling the call. Add that to the poor coach management, poor clock management, and the slow walk out of the gym, and we've got a lot of room for improvement here.

[MechanicGuy]

It looks like a good block to me. Not sure who the calling official was waving at. If he comes running in to close on the play, hit the whistle a few times, and emphatically count the basket, there is no confusion. Confusion and lack of clear signals/communication KILLS our credibility on tough plays, regardless of our accuracy,

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Not sure who the calling official was waving at.

Hot single Mom in the bleachers?

[Pantherdreams]

Thread highjacking underway . . .

I think we've gone over the accuracy, validity, etc of the call enough. I would like to point out that in a High School basketball game:
- Coaches were allowed to come out onto floor and question officials.
- PLayers approaching and demonstratively arguing with officials and inciting crowd.
- While game is still going on crowd members cursing loudly enough to be heard and not being removed.
- PLayers, officials and parents chasing following officials off floor.
- Entire sections of your crowd full of parents, families and kids chanting curse words.
- The commentator blatantly accusing officials of repeatedly and intentionally impacting the result of the game.

If I'm an assigner or AD involved in this situation and I see this video. Beyond whatever feedback conversations you want to have with officials, at a school and league level there need to be adults facing suspensions from facility and games. And plans in place to not allow this to be normalized behaviour.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Thread highjacking underway . . .

I think we've gone over the accuracy, validity, etc of the call enough. I would like to point out that in a High School basketball game:
- Coaches were allowed to come out onto floor and question officials.
- PLayers approaching and demonstratively arguing with officials and inciting crowd.
- While game is still going on crowd members cursing loudly enough to be heard and not being removed.
- PLayers, officials and parents chasing following officials off floor.
- Entire sections of your crowd full of parents, families and kids chanting curse words.
- The commentator blatantly accusing officials of repeatedly and intentionally impacting the result of the game.

If I'm an assigner or AD involved in this situation and I see this video. Beyond whatever feedback conversations you want to have with officials, at a school and league level there need to be adults facing suspensions from facility and games. And plans in place to not allow this to be normalized behaviour.

I can't agree more. If one coach got T'd, the other wouldn't have acted up. Irresponsible behavior must have consequences.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Could really care less about whether it was or was not GT.

What I do care about are:

1. If there was ever a time to sell a call by the T, this was it. Instead he waived his hand as though he just saw his grandma in the third row.

2. Really have to do a better job getting the coaches and teams corralled. Easier said then done.

3. With a nod to both 1 and 2, this is why we need 3-person crews. A stable slot official moving back and forth with more control amid the chaos of the moment would have had a much better look at this play. And regardless of how it would have been called, chances are it would have been more believable. Not to mention the clock then could have been managed better, and perhaps coach histrionics held in check. All worth the extra $100 or whatever progressive CT pay rate BillyMac always brags about. The CIAA and the cheapskate coaches and administrators who perpetuate this 2-person butt soup have only themselves to blame for an outcome like this. I feel zero sympathy.

I can't help but agree. 2-person crews in transition, which this situation was, are often in bad positions to call the play. That is why Trail made the call but didn't really sell it. Perhaps Lead also called goaltending, which he had to call because trail wasn't in good position. I would have been more emphatic with scoring the goal, maybe even moving towards the play to make it look like I was closer.

On a 3-person crew, C would have been in a decent position near the free throw line extended to see goaltending. He would also have been in position to turn around and address the coach who was trying to enter the floor if tableside, or to come across the floor to intercept if opposite the table.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I can't help but agree. 2-person crews in transition, which this situation was, are often in bad positions to call the play. That is why Trail made the call but didn't really sell it. Perhaps Lead also called goaltending, which he had to call because trail wasn't in good position. I would have been more emphatic with scoring the goal, maybe even moving towards the play to make it look like I was closer.

...

The Lead called a foul on Black after the rebound. That got nullified when the Trail finally communicated he had ruled a goaltending.

[JRutledge]

The trail's mechanics (some get in their feelings if you do not say signals) is what caused this issue. If he had simply ran closer and turned to the table and said, "Count the basket" then it would have looked a lot better. Also you could hear someone say in the video "How could you call it from that far away" on the actual game feed that was from YouTube. He barely came inside the division line. That is a call that has to be made or at least get to the top of the 3 point line to "sell."

Again this is a 2 person game where based on the previous play would be far away if he is doing his job. I had a play in a college game where I was unwilling to make a play on a quick fast break and we ended up missing the call, but I had a C that had a much better look and passed on the play (and we got the play wrong BTW when doing film review). There should never be 2 Person in the playoffs when someone goes home if there is a loss.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The trail's mechanics ... is what caused this issue. If he had simply ran closer and turned to the table and said, "Count the basket" then it would have looked a lot better.

Are you saying that he should have ignored his partner's whistle (he definitely heard it because he kept is hand up as he walked toward him to confer) and immediately, strongly, emphatically, and confidently counted the basket, only after that to confer with his partner?

That's one way to handle this situation. That certainly would have been a better look and would have have projected a strong call, and, in hindsight, it would not have generated any controversy (lead called a slightly later unintentional foul on Red but it was determined to be after the goaltend, thus a dead ball, so same outcome), but the trail didn't have the advantage of hindsight at the time of the call.

I will agree that, once the conference was complete, and the decision was made to call the goaltend, the trail should have turned to the table, emphatically signaled the good basket, and emphatically stated, "Count the basket", but he didn't, his approach was much too casual, like he makes last second, possibly controversial, game saving calls, in win or go home games, every day! Just another ho hum day at the office.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Normally one would like this goaltending call to be emphatically made, "Count the basket", by the trail. I think that he was temporally put off by the lead's whistle, and didn't want to count the basket until he checked with his partner (travel, etc.). By watching the Red team and their fans, even when the trail makes his decision, he doesn't announce it until he gets to the table, and it was never an emphatic signal. Once the trail made his decision, I would have liked him to take a step away from his partner to an open area on the court and emphatically "slam down" the two points, "Count the basket". And only then move toward the table to answer any polite questions from the White coach.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... this call should have been "sold" and never really was ... how many times have we been encouraged not to give preliminary signals on double whistles? If the trail had immediately and emphatically "slammed down" the two points, "Count the basket", and then discovered that the lead called a travel (even though he put up a fist) before the goaltend (with a late whistle, but with the travel before the goaltend), then we'd be discussing a different type of problem. That being said, once the crew made the decision that it was a goaltend, the trail certainly did not do a very good job of selling the call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you saying that he should have ignored his partner's whistle (he definitely heard it because he kept is hand up as he walked toward him to confer) and immediately, strongly, emphatically, and confidently counted the basket, only after that to confer with his partner?

Who said anything about ignoring something? Is this any different than a play where you have a travel and then you have a foul? Nope. You have a clear violation, go sell the damn violation. And if you have to go to your partner, run to your partner and say, "I see what you have, the goaltending happened first." Then emphatically call the violation by counting the basket to the table. That wave crap makes it look like he clearly does not know what he has or tht he is unsure. This is the end of the game, not in the middle of the 1st quarter.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are you saying that he should have ignored his partner's whistle (he definitely heard it because he kept is hand up as he walked toward him to confer)
...

The Lead's whistle is for a play that clearly comes after the "goaltending", so yes.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The Lead called a foul on Black after the rebound. That got nullified when the Trail finally communicated he had ruled a goaltending.

I couldn't tell what the Lead was calling. I was commenting more on the 2-person crew being set up to fail because of the type of situation (transition) that happened.

I agree with JRut that 2-person should not be a thing in the playoffs, not only because of situations like this. I would go further and argue that regular season varsity games should be 3-person, because they all count for state playoff qualification.

I would sell the crap out of the goaltending call, because this is a moment that warrants it (tied game near the end). There isn't replay to prove or disprove the goaltending, so what I call is what will happen.