Goaltending ???
 

Yes. It is really close, but it is on the way down.

Noises ??? What Are Noises ???
 

Note the home team is called the "Noises", the only team in the country with that name. The school is located in the Moodus section of the town of East Haddam, CT.

Moodus Noises is the name given to an acoustic phenomenon that has plagued the citizens of the village of Moodus in the town of East Haddam for centuries. The Moodus Noises are strange rumblings, thunderings, and crashings that seem to originate somewhere around Mount Tom, a 300 foot tall hill of schist and granite near where the Salmon River (I kayak there all the time) and Moodus River meet. The noises come in clusters, occasionally in succession, often over a period of days, or months.

Native Americans called the area Machimoodus, which means “Place Of Bad Noises”. The area is now Machimoodus State Park. Settlers later shortened the name of the village to Moodus. The Wangunk tribe attributed the noises to a god named Hobbamock, who apparently was a restless, violent, and exceptionally noisy entity who controlled darkness, disease, and bad weather. A most treacherous and hideous being, Hobbamock lurks in the night-time shadows. Some people will not go out alone at night for fear of an encounter with this frightful fiend. He is the Native American bogeyman and the equal of the European devil. The medicine men tried to figure out the right combination of sacrifice and prayer to calm the angry god.

Connecticut is considered to be in a moderate seismic risk zone as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Although people tend to think of New England as rock-steady country, it is actually a region of moderate earthquake activity. While often not associated with the typical West-Coast imagery that comes with reports of earthquake activity, Connecticut has a surprisingly under-appreciated history of seismic disturbances and geologists now recognize Moodus as one of the most active earthquake zones in New England. The hard granite and metamorphic rocks in Connecticut can transmit seismic waves (and transmit sounds) up to forty times more efficiently than the soft rock and sand in California.

It is currently thought that the Eastford Fault is the main fault that is responsible for the Moodus noises; it is mapped just north of Machimoodus State Park.

Note that there will be a quiz on this.

Backboard ???
 

I think that I agree. Did the ball come off the backboard, or was it a direct shot?

Up Or Down ???
 

I saw three layup (hit backboard first) goaltends last week while observing my friends (this game was not officiated by my local guys, only the road team is from our local area. "Local guys" can only work state tournament games where neither team is from our local area, or both teams are from our local area).

Two I agreed with.

The third I was watching for contact and didn't see the goaltend. I asked the calling official (top notch guy) about it, specifically if the ball was going down. He replied that he wasn't sure, he just called it because the ball hit the backboard (the NCAA rule, even though he knew the NFHS difference). None of the offending team fans complained, because fans (and coaches) don't know the difference between the NCAA and NFHS rule.

Love the ignorant fan in the video yelling, "How can you see that from back there?", because it's the trail's call 99% of the time in a two person game.

Backboard Nothing To Do With Goaltending ...
 

From my Most Misunderstood NFHS Basketball Rules list:

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is when a player touches the ball during a try, or tap, while it is in its downward flight, entirely above the basket ring level, outside the imaginary cylinder above the ring, and has the possibility of entering the basket. On most layups, the ball is going up immediately after it contacts the backboard, and in this situation it is legal for a defender to touch the ball if it is not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket.

I'd respond to the OP, but I don't want to interrupt the conversation.

I'm So Excited (The Pointer Sisters, 1982) ...
 

Sorry, I just got so excited seeing Connecticut officiating in a national conversation (the video was on My Space).

Also thought I'd give a "mascot" explanation to you earthquake buffs. We do have earthquake buffs here on the Forum? Right?

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.R...=0&w=238&h=165

This would be a good FPF play to submit.

This appears to be a good block, so I would say call incorrect.
GT and BI calls can be very close during live play.
We need 110% knowledge that it is or isn't.

Feel like the coach's actions should've been addressed as well...now that could've made the end of the game really interesting.

Two-man crew, nobody can complain about a goaltending call on a fast break.

I don't care about any school's mascot or earthquakes in a certain state.

If You're Not Sure, Don't Call It ...
 

Don't really need 100% knowledge that it isn't (that would just be a bonus).

We only need 100% knowledge that it is, if not, it isn't.

Slowed this down and it was not a GT at all. It was on its way up and could make a case the ball is never above the rim.

The only question I have is did the lead make this call? Other than that, this is 2 man, shame on the schools for allowing that to happen and then complain about a tough call like that one.

Peace

Also as I watch this video. Why is the coach on the floor in both cases and it seems like no one sends him back? He is out there for a long time. You on the court like that, if you do not immediately go back (and the call is in your favor), there might be a T coming. Don't care the situation, get off the damn court. I hope there was at the very least a bench warning.

And finally, get off the damn court. No way in hell I am still on the court and the game is clearly over. Not taking my time. They do not give out candy after the game.

Peace

Lead's Foul Call ...
 

Lead, not hearing his partner's whistle for the goaltending violation, called a foul (fist signal) on Red #1 after White #4 snagged the rebound off the missed shot. Ball was already dead when he made the (non-intentional) foul call.

Well, that makes a little more sense, but I hate the body language of the trail if he is calling such a big play. Not about if he is right or not, standing back at the division line and almost never going to the table in the moment gives doubt to the call. Yes even in 2 person.

Peace

Complain To The Lead ...
 

Yes, the Red coach does take a long (dead ball) walk all the way out to the lane to complain to the lead (who had his fist up for a Red foul) about the lack of a goaltending call from the lead. Wrong official to complain to, ignorant coach obviously doesn't know that it's usually the trail that makes such a call.

He's out there for about five seconds until he (literally) backs up toward his bench. Not sure if he was sent back, both officials are out of the frame, but the way he backs up after the second official enters the conversation hints to me that he was either warned to get back, or heard some "good news". Agree with JRutledge, not a good look. Worthy of a written warning? Sure. Worthy of a technical foul at this juncture in the game? Not so sure.

Count The Basket ...
 

Agree. 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.

Agree with JRutledge, the trail's hesitancy and lack of a emphatic signal made his call look weak.

Pot Shots ...
 

Yes, the slow walk out of the gym gave the White coach a chance to take post-game "pot shots" at both officials. He should have made his points and finished his complaining when he had his chance with the trail at the table answering his questions. White coach got his explanation there, trail gave him plenty of time for a discussion, coach should have moved on, he didn't. In a win or go home game, it's tough to go home. I guess he needed some type of catharsis. Slow walking officials gave him that chance, so he took it.

This is goaltending. The ball is on its way down with a chance to enter the basket in flight. It would help if the trail gives an emphatic "Score the goal" signal and says "Score the goal!" so everyone can hear him. As Lead, I would keep the coach for Red off the floor. If he charges or does anything aggressive towards an official, he gets a technical foul. Same thing for the White coach.

Backboard ???
 

Did the ball come off the backboard, or was it a direct shot?

From my angle, it was a direct shot.

If You're Not Sure, Don't Call It ...
 

I thought the same, also thought the ball was moving downward.

But that was only after watching the video several times.

Was I certain enough to make the call?

Maybe the trail had a slightly better look than we did?

He touched it on the way up and it hit the backboard after he touched it. It was clearly not a GT if you see the replay. It is on the FB pages and I even put up a better video there. Hard to link to here.

Peace

Better Look ...
 

Agree that the ball hit the backboard after the touch.

Better look? Gotta go along with JRutledge.

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.

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.

Bob,

Do we have permission to use your quote in other threads??

Clock Management ...
 

Agree. Surprised we missed this yesterday. Whether, or not, the goaltending was correct, or incorrect, this crew did a poor job on this play. Signals. Coach management. Clock management. Leaving the gym. All could have been done better.

Cheapskate Principals ...
 

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.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.B...=0&w=123&h=188

Double Whistle Preliminary Signals ...
 

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.

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.

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

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

Just Another Day At The Office ...
 

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.

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

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

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.

Happened First ...
 

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

Clarity ...
 

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?

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

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.

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.

Criticism...
 

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".

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,

Waving Through A Window (Dear Evan Hansen, 2015) ...
 

Hot single Mom in the bleachers?

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.