Goaltending ???

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Is this any different than a play where you have a travel and then you have a foul? ... 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.

No it isn't. Agree 100%. Wish he had done this. But he didn't. Thus the dumpster fire.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

The trail in the video didn't seem to be clear about anything. I have never seen a less confident, or more timid, demeanor from an official in a game situation like this.

I'm more animated and confident (voice and body language) in my first simple out bounds call of a first period, or my last simple out of bounds call with a minute to go in a fourth period of a thirty point blowout.

And I will jack it up a notch, selling it, when needed in close, possibly controversial calls.

My long time interpreter used to say that the best bad call is a strong bad call.

What we had here was a weak, possibly bad, call.

Am I being too harsh?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Am I being too harsh?

Yes -- because you had the same call even after watching the video.

[FlasherZ]

Maybe I'm too late to reply but in this situation, I have a good block on the shot and a technical foul on the red coach for running onto the court to scream at the lead. I do agree the trail's mechanics are bad here. I wouldn't argue with his call in a conference with him, but if I'm trail, I'm not calling that, it needs to be more obvious in a downward trajectory.

Whether it's goaltending or not, the coach 100% deserves a technical foul.

You cannot be 10 feet on the court arguing or lobbying for a call, ever. What you permit, you promote. Don't permit unprofessional behavior.

[ODog]

The slow-walking directly into and through the line of fire after the horn is the cherry on top. The younger official still has his whistle in his mouth in the circle as the postgame confrontations begin ... GTFO! And do it in a route that takes you away from the benches.

In his defense, however, he's probably in a fog and trying to project confidence or a carefree attitude after he KNOWS his partner screwed the pooch and irrevocably altered the outcome.

Btw, I'm late to the party, but this was a clean block upon initial view, and on every subsequent replay. And from 45ish feet away ... it's nothing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes -- because you had the same call even after watching the video.

My main criticism is regarding the the trial's lack of "selling" the call (even after the crew made it's decision), clock management (crew), coach management (crew) and his slow walk out of the gym (crew).

After watching this video several times, I'm still unsure of the goaltending call, so I'm not calling it in my real game, maybe he had a different look than us, it's hard to fault an official for a bang bang play in a real game when we have the benefit of video, knowing in advance what we're looking for before it happens, and replay. So, for that, I won't throw him under the bus, just off the curb to scare him a little to remind him, "If you're not sure, don't call it, and, "The best bad call is a strong bad call".

[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,