Was it really that bad?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... the understanding of the rule by those who adjudicate it.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Purpose and intent.

Purpose and intent being about delay, not advantage/disadvantage.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Angel Reese follows and taunts Caitlin Clark for eight seconds. I know that Clark did it in the semifinals (I saw it and didn't like it), but Reese's taunt in the finals seems different, longer, targeted, mean spirited, and less enthusiastically spontaneous than Clark’s taunt. Reese said that it was disrespectful for Clark to do it to sister SEC school South Carolina, I agree, but it was also disrespectful for Reese to do it to Clark. At least Clark didn't follow around her South Carolina opponents for eight seconds and stick it in their face.

Angel Reese's NIL Value Leaps To $1.3 Million

https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/...k/70103680007/

I wonder what Ms. Reese's NIL value would be if she "only" won the national championship and didn't get involved with the taunting controversy, with gasoline poured on the racial aspect of this fire by the media (and Ms. Reese herself)?

More NIL money, or less NIL money?

Did Dr. Jill Biden's (I'm a big fan or Dr. Biden, but not in this situation) controversial (possibly racist) and new precedent setting White House invitation to both teams, and Ms. Reese's negative RSVP to Dr. Biden, increase or decrease Ms. Reese's NIL value?

Will NIL deals and the transfer portal (regarded as a student right forever available to non-sports students in the past) lead to the opening of the Pandora's Box we all know and love as colleges sports?

I used to be a big Celtics fan and Red Sox fan. Now with free agents and trades based on salary caps happening so often I don't recognize the team members without a scorecard. I just begin to get comfortable with a favorite player, or two, or three, and "poof", they're gone.

Now I can't count on the players sticking around at UCONN (men or women) for three or four years due to the transfer portal. And every year we seem to get some transfer portal players that I only get to know for a year, or two, and then their eligibility runs out. And this "fifth" COVID eligibility year confuses me. I can't wait until all these "COVID players" use up their "extra year" of eligibility, or otherwise move on to the next level.

Now could somebody please help me down from this soapbox. I've been blathering on for too long a time on too many subjects and I'm getting dizzy up here.

[Raymond]

Why are there like seven paragraphs that have nothing to do with officiating?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Why are there like seven paragraphs that have nothing to do with officiating?

...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Now could somebody please help me down from this soapbox. I've been blathering on for too long a time on too many subjects and I'm getting dizzy up here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Why are there like seven paragraphs that have nothing to do with officiating?

Or nothing to do with the topic? Typical of Billy. You know this already.

Peace

[Multiple Sports]

It was a great three weeks on this site. The threads regarding the tournament were intelligent and it was an enjoyable read without one poster hijacking threads and answering his own questions in the next post. Time to go back to Facebook conversations...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

The threads regarding the tournament were intelligent and it was an enjoyable read without one poster hijacking threads and answering his own questions in the next post.

Me?

Was it really that bad?

I believe that I intelligently contributed (even though I'm a high school official) to this thread with multiple posts on different situations presented in the NCAA-W final game (and similar situations):

1) Caitlin Clark’s technical foul (I posted about it minutes after Nevadaref without reading his post), the possibly confusing-to-some complex compound sentence written rule (but with clear purpose and intent), and the difference between the NCAA rule (as infamously observed in the NCAA-W final) and the NFHS rule seeding some future possible high school confusion.

2) Coach Mulkey on the court and accidentally coming into contact with the official (I was the first to post about it).

3) Inconsistent hand checking calls (I was the first to post about it).

4) Angel Reese taunting Caitlin Clark (I was the first to post about it) and Clark taunting South Carolina opponents, touched upon a possible racist component, the taunt's possible effect on Reese’s NIL money, and the effect of NIL money on college basketball in general.

5) A reply to JRutledge’s “not calling a foul, but gave them the out of bounds kind of situation” post and how this ancient philosophy may have changed over the years (at least it has for me).

6) A reply to JRutledge’s “that does not mean you change the entire rulebook” (regarding calling or not calling in important tournament games) post with a “water on the floor delay” in an important high school tournament game post.

7) An agreeing reply to JRutledge’s “I make a habit of not chasing any basketball” post with a similar post about keeping your eyes on the players (and how I almost lost a basketball).

I don't recall a single instance of answering my own question in the next post (but I could be wrong).

Of course, granted, not all of my posts were fully 100% on topic.

I really, really hated reading Pride and Prejudice, and I know barely more than the starting lineups of the Red Sox and Celtics.

[Raymond]

@BillyMac, there are 8 different posts where you quote yourself..

The 2nd longest post in this thread is some rambling nonsense that had nothing to do with officiating (the longest post is a list of plays from a game, not someone's soliloquy like yours).

You hijacked the thread every time is got too slow for you.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

@BillyMac, there are 8 different posts where you quote yourself.

Never said I didn't quote myself. Was I "answering my own question" (which I have done in other threads after further research), or was I expounding or extrapolating to the topic, or using my quote combined with somebody else's quote to introduce a new aspect to the discussion?

Also, what's wrong with "answering my own question"? Why must I wait for somebody else to answer? Internet etiquette? Do I have to wait a certain minimum amount of time before, after further research, answering my own question? Do I have to patiently wait and give everybody else a shot before I answer?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The 2nd longest post in this thread is some rambling nonsense that had nothing to do with officiating ...

Yes, I did go down the rabbit hole again. Sometimes it's just too inviting.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes, I did go down the rabbit hole again. Sometimes it's just too inviting.

There are other places for that. This shouldn't be that place if one is courtesy of others, IMO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yes, I did go down the rabbit hole again. Sometimes it's just too inviting.

It is actually kind of rude to keep doing this over and over again and random people are complaining about it. But we have no moderators, so I guess it is OK.

Nothing I said had anything to do with your behavior. I stick to the sport and discussion of officiating.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

There are other places for that ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is actually kind of rude to keep doing this over and over again ...

Fair assessment. I'm not disagreeing.

However, as indicated by a recent post, about 90% of my posts in this thread were intelligent contributions and in some cases it was I that first broached some important topics.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Fair assessment. I'm not disagreeing.

However, as indicated by a recent post, about 90% of my posts in this thread were intelligent contributions and in some cases I broached an important topic,

Again why not 100%? Why not stay away from things that have nothing to do with the topic? How about staying away from internal conversations you are having with yourself that the rest of us do not care about? Why post pictures related to something else other than the topic? Again, if you want to talk about the topic that is fine, but it gets annoying when you bring up other things not related to the topic. And yes you can get off topic if it is in the actual context of the discussion, like how another rule relates, but you go way off talking about something else that does not apply. It is worst when you keep quoting your own posts to post something else not related to what we are talking about. Maybe do that on FB or other kinds of forums where that happens and is welcomed, but here we are often trying to talk about the topic at hand and figure it out. And you often comment as if you work the level we are discussing and giving points that have nothing to do with that level.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again why not 100%?

Good goal for me. I'll give it my best shot.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you often comment as if you work the level we are discussing and giving points that have nothing to do with that level.

Most regulars on this Forum know that I'm not a college official, but for any "lurkers", or new members, I try to always identify myself as such, and usually identify my comments as being only NFHS related.

I will sometimes comment on college situations (as I did in this thread) to gain a better understanding of college rules as I watch college games on television, or to "warn" those members who only do high school games (as myself) to avoid the pitfalls of confusing the two rule sets because the rules might not be the same. Also, many college rules are almost exactly the same as high school rules, making me think that I'm sometimes allowed to comment (while still being open to criticism for different college and high school interpretations of the same exact rule. i.e. college supervisor expectations).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I wonder if this now infamous NCAA play (Caitlin Clark Technical Foul) will confuse some NFHS officials to incorrectly believe that "failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds" allows (or requires) a warning for delay in their high school games (in essence, an incorrect fifth warning for delay situation). This wouldn't be the first time some high school officials confused NFHS and NCAA rules (see backcourt deflection, backboard goaltending, etc.).