|
Was it really that bad?
I really enjoyed watching Caitlin Clark in the national semi, but I was unable to watch any of the Women's Final. This morning, however, I've heard several commentators say that the officiating was particularly poor. I expect to hear this from the loudmouths on TV, but I've heard from at least 3 people who are not normally ref-bashers.
For those that watched, did you find the officiating to be shaky? I honestly can't imagine the whole crew being bad for the whole game, but I've heard 2 different people say that the crew should not work the tournament again. But I honestly can't believe that it couldn't have been that bad, right? Honest thoughts? |
In my opinion, the game was not well-called.
The issue was that it was unclear what level of contact was a foul and what physical play was acceptable. The threshold was not defined well. Early there were several whistles for minor contact, which probably should have been let go. Unfortunately, this put a few of the starters in foul trouble (especially from LSU) and forced them to the bench. The second quarter also had two (soft) offensive fouls on Clark for pushing the defender away after the defender was allowed to be physical and cause contact. So this seemed out of balance to me. Either whistle the first foul or allow both players to battle. However, in the third quarter a post player from each team was permitted to turn into the defender while leading with an elbow to clear space. Neither was whistled as a PC. Both were looked at on the monitor without change. (Neither was an F1, but both should have been called PC during live action.) The first play had a defensive foul whistled and the second had nothing. Then there was the technical foul, which was not a public display and easily could have been ignored given the game situation (time, score, foul count on a top player, etc.). I would fully support whacking a player for clear disrespectful behavior that everyone can see, but this was not that. Clark was huddling with her teammates, and if something was said only a couple of people heard it. (Note: She has been a complainer and displayed poor behavior in prior games this season.) If the T was for throwing the ball away, it came too late and from the official on the opposite side of the court, so I’m not convinced that was the cause. Finally, what about the taunting by LSU at the end of the game? They have a large lead so a tech here isn’t going to alter the outcome, but it would send a clear message that such behavior is unacceptable, yet this was completely ignored. Was it poor enough to warrant being blocked from future tournament assignments? No. Not being assigned another Final Four contest? Maybe The game management of these three officials didn’t seem to be at the level of a massive Final (media attention, big crowd, large TV audience). My soccer officiating background has taught me that in such situations, over-calling the game deprives the audience of a show. They are watching to see a performance and the referee should strive to facilitate that. One should only penalize and remove the players when necessary. I’m convinced that being tight early to “set the tone” of the contest only serves to frustrate the players, coaches, and fans. Big games call for raising the threshold somewhat and using management skills to control the players and coaches. These officials just went straight to the whistle. The Iowa coach even commented following the game that she was particularly frustrated because the officials wouldn’t talk to her. So it was clearly a lack of personal skills and people management. Obviously, I wasn’t present in the building or on the sideline, but it seems that the wrong approach was taken by the officiating crew. I would have liked to see them manage the people more and blow the whistle less. Of course, I’ve never been assigned an NCAA tournament game, let alone a Final. |
Caitlin Clark Technical Foul ...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UbP_-ocdMbg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The pool report ... said "The second offense was when No. 22 from Iowa picked up the ball and failed to immediately pass the ball to the official after the whistle was blown." I've been around interscholastic basketball (not intercollegiate basketball) for fifty-five years, as a player, coach, and official, and have never seen this called. As an official I've warned players about this kind of activity on many occasions, even stopping the game to have a serious chat with the player, but I've never called it, or observed it called. It takes a lot of courage by an official to call this on one of the top players in the nation, putting her in foul trouble, in a national championship game watched by millions of people. The calling official must have had a good reason to call it? If this happened in my biggest middle school game of the year, with one of my best middle school players, I would have definitely passed, or just warned. But granted, I know more about rocket science than I know about NCAA rules. |
Quote:
Should they be denied future tournament opportunities? Probably not, but I do think game-to-game consistency needs to be looked at. |
Kim Mulkey ...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1642635083856191500
Maybe it was Coach Mulkey's bright outfit that made her stand out like a sore thumb, but if she is on the court and accidentally comes into contact with me in my high school game, at the minimum, she'll get a written warning in the book for her action. But granted, I know more about rocket surgery than I know about NCAA rules. |
Hand Checking ...
Lots of hand checking allowed by both teams (more noticeable by Caitlin Clark defenders, Clark retaliated and was called for two player control fouls).
We've done a good job of cleaning up hand checking in Connecticut high school basketball since the NFHS rule language changes and point of emphasis. I guess that freedom of movement is not a priority in wimmen’s college basketball? (Just kidding, knowing the disdain that some have for 28.5 female basketball.) Of course I know more about brain science than I know about NCAA rules. |
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right ...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1642650038886170624
https://twitter.com/i/status/1642649994216833026 Angel Reese follows and taunts Caitlin Clark for eight seconds. https://twitter.com/i/status/1640182237005004801 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. As an official I may have missed Clark's short-lived semifinal taunt (if I saw it I would have addressed it), but the eight second final taunt in my high school game would have definitely gotten my attention and a technical foul. 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. Of course I know more about brain surgery than I know about NCAA rules. |
When players draw attention to themselves, especially on the biggest of stages, there is a chance that players might respond when they get the chance. Not the first time that has happened in sports. Seen it with Lebron James or Tariq Hill of the KC Chiefs or when teams go after a team dance or some gesture from the fans (Florida and Florida State come to mind). This is no different and could have been addressed better, but it wasn't.
Peace |
Unsporting Activity ...
Quote:
I will never, ever, be able to fully understand the "pressure cooker" situation of an NCAA Final Four official, but if this unsporting activity, by both Clark and especially by Reese, happened in my high school game, I hope that I would have the courage to address it. This is my beloved game of basketball, not my son's beloved "sport" of professional wrestling. https://staticg.sportskeeda.com/edit...669613-800.jpg |
What I will never understand, why is it in the Women's game you see actions you see nowhere else and it is hardly ever addressed. Mulkey can act a fool and no one gets in her chest and says, "Will you knock it off!!!" You hardly see them talk to her while she acts like a maniac. She almost touched and official yesterday and the officials appeared to do nothing at all. Don't touch me, I cannot touch you. It is either indifference or fear of what they might do or say.
In the Regional of this Tournament the SDSU coach went off after the officials made a great call during a loose ball. The SDSU coach could hardly react and he was T'd up. Then there was an officials basically addressing him after the T and you did not see another blow up in that game or one that matched the one where he got penalized. You never see what Mulkey does at the Men's side. At least not consistently. Peace |
That's What Little Girls Are Made Of ...
Quote:
|
I didn’t watch the entire game but did see Mulkey’s histrionics (on the court multiple times??) and Angel Reese’s clear taunting actions (too small, pointing at her ring finger while staring at Clark), both of which the crew did nothing about. Yet they got Iowa for a DOG and subsequent T on a technicality that probably doesn’t meet the spirit and intent of the rule.
Iowa coach definitely has a legitimate gripe on these plays. I haven’t heard anyone in officiating or non-officiating spheres come close to suggesting that the officiating was at an acceptable level, much less in the biggest game in WBB history. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
I’ve noticed in NCAA-W that they don’t talk players out of cheap handchecks or post fouls, something that is quite common and generally accepted in the men’s game (just look at Jeff Anderson). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
I say this pretty clearly, adjust. There is no reason to put your hand on ball handlers unless you want to make the official decide of that is a foul. Peace |
Thanks For The Memories ...
Quote:
I stopped doing that when everybody's grandmother sitting in the bleachers had access to a high definition video camera with their cell phones. Now I decide to call the foul, or not call the foul, based on what I see, intent and purpose, advantage-disadvantage, my previous calls in the game, and consistency between me and my partner. I no longer call a make-up, make-believe, phantom out of bounds call. If I pass on the foul, I'm always calling out of bounds on the team that touched it last, as James Naismith intended. Sure one coach is pissed, but that's why we get paid the big bucks, to make such tough decisions. |
Hand Checking ...
Quote:
|
You are correct.....
Quote:
|
Hand Checking ...
Quote:
NFHS 10-7-12: The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a ball handler/dribbler. A player becomes a ball handler when he/she receives the ball. This would include a player in a post position. a. Placing two hands on the player. b. Placing an extended arm bar on the player. c. Placing and keeping a hand on the player. d. Contacting the player more than once with the same hand or alternating hands. NFHS 10.7.12 SITUATION A: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt and B1 (a) places two hands on the dribbler; (b) places an extended arm bar on the dribbler; (c) places and keeps a hand on the dribbler; (d) contacts the dribbler more than once with the same hand or alternating hands. RULING: Illegal in all cases. A personal foul shall be ruled any time this type of contact occurs on a player holding or dribbling the ball. (10-6-12) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
LSU was the better team. They won. |
Quote:
The call I had the biggest problem with was the T on Clark. Yes, by the strict definition of the rule, this was the correct call. I don't think this was the intent of the rule, nor the spirit of the rule. In my opinion the spirit of the rule and intent is to prevent the game from being delayed (thus the DOG warning issued first). You can't tell me the game was delayed because of Clark's actions that got her the T. |
Quote:
|
Funny thing is, when the incident happened and and I found out what she did, my original thought was "just give her a delay warning." That's what a lot of NBA guys say to do in that situation so that players know it's not alright to toss the ball away from us like that without having to penalize them. But since they already had a delay warning, it cost her a technical.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk |
Delay ...
Quote:
NCAA: (Referee Lisa Jones) cited Rule 4, Section 9, Article 1F of the rulebook, which reads that a player can be assessed a foul for “attempting to gain an advantage by interfering with the ball after a goal or by failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a whistle is blown.” In the same section, the rulebook states that “one team warning shall be given for each of the delays in Rule 4-9.1.d through g.” “Thereafter, a technical foul shall be assessed for the delay that has previously received a team warning,” it reads. NCAA-W Rule 4 Section 9 Delay Art. 1. A delay is any action that impedes the progress or continuity of the game. Such actions include, but are not limited to: a. Failure to supply scorers with data per Rule 3-4.1; b. Consuming a full minute by not being ready when it is time to start either half or any ovretime; c. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play, such as but not limited to, followers or bench personnel entering the playing court before player activity has been terminated. When the delay does not interfere with play, it shall be ignored, and play shall be continued or be resumed at the point of interruption; d. Repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing court; e. Failure to have the court ready for play after the final horn to end any timeout; f. Attempting to gain an advantage by interfering with the ball after a goal or by failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a whistle is blown; or g. The opponents of the thrower-in having any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Art. 2. One team warning shall be given for each of the delays in Rule 4-9.1.d through .g. Each warning shall be reported to the official scorer. Thereafter, a technical foul shall be assessed for the delay that has previously received a team warning. It appears that the NCAA treats "failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a whistle is blown" like many other delays, including giving a warning for such a delay, whereas the NFHS does not allow (or require) a warning for delay for "failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds". The NFHS technical foul, while "technically" for a delay, is somewhat "free standing" and does not allow (or require) a warning for such a delay. NFHS 10-4- 5: A player must not: Delay the game by acts such as: a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play. b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds. c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission. d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10. RULE 4 - SECTION 47 NFHS 4-47: Warning For Delay: A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach: ART. 1 . . . For throw-in plane violations, as in 9-2-10, 10-2-1c. ART. 2 . . . For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in 10-2-1d. ART. 3 . . . For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-2-1e. ART. 4 . . . For failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout as in 10-2-1f. I wonder if this now infamous NCAA play 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.). |
Would not be surprised if discussion takes place on the penalty. NFHS DOG after warning it is a Foul on the team and not charged to player. maybe NCAAW look at making this the HS penalty.
|
He's A Rebel (The Blossoms With Darlene Love, 1962) ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My baby's always the one to try the things they've never done And just because of that, they say He's a rebel and he'll never ever be any good He's a rebel 'cause he never ever does what he should But just because he doesn't do what everybody else does That's no reason why I can't give him all my love I would actually like the NFHS to list this as a fifth delay warning. |
Ancient Times ...
Quote:
Quote:
Back in ancient times all players knew to toss the ball to the nearest official. Of course, back then they also knew to raise their hand if they were charged with a foul. Ancient times were often "more polite" times, seems that there was more respect for officials back then. http://www.vintagepaperads.com/assets/images/DW0662.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk |
Quote:
Peace |
Change ...
Quote:
That said, the college rule is worded differently than the high school rule, and I'm not a college official. |
Interesting Anecdote ...
Quote:
NFHS 10-2-1-F Team Technical: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: Not having the court ready for play following any time-out after any team warning for delay. This high school rule (above) has been around for long time, and when it was first introduced the example given was water being spilled on the floor. Despite the “water on the floor” rule being around for a long time, I’ve never called it, nor have I ever seen it called, probably for reasons of appearing overly officious, it being accidental, a common part of the game, not causing any advantage or disadvantage, and only taking a few extra seconds to clean up. I was observing a friend (former science student of mine) in a state tournament semifinal a few weeks ago. He, and of his two partners, are “regular” state final officials (after this semifinal game all three moved onto a state final), so all are considered to be some of the best officials in Connecticut. During a charged timeout water was accidentally spilled the floor and had to be cleaned up, delaying the game by less than a minute, not much longer than any other water spillage I’ve ever observed. My friend and one of his partners had a short chat and then my friend, the referee, had a delay warning recorded in the scorebook (no previous delay warning of any type) and reported it to both head coaches. Since I’ve never called a “water on the floor” delay , nor have I ever seen it called, during the post-game conference I asked about the warning and if they had considered passing on the warning. My friend (the son of a college and high school basketball coach, a truly outstanding high school player, a truly outstanding high school assistant coach, and now a truly outstanding basketball official) replied, “NOT IN A STATE SEMIFINAL”, and then later followed up by admitting that he may have, "Passed on it in a regular season game". Maybe things are (and should be) called differently in big time, win or go home, games? |
Intermission ???
Quote:
|
There was delay called earlier and unlike HS basketball they have a delay for not giving the ball to the officials (football actually has a similar rule BTW). Now that being said, if a delay had been called before, then it is expected you know this as a player and act accordingly. Not the same rule in the NF, but you can give a T for that action and it is not apart of the delay. Now her action was done in anger and that is why she got the T, not just because she threw the ball. It probably had been ignored if she had just let the ball lay, but she threw it so there you go.
Peace |
Do Not Pass Go ...
Quote:
Quote:
In high school basketball we can't give any official warning for not giving the ball to the officials, the NFHS expects us to go directly to a technical foul, which many of us (at least me) are reluctant to do. I college, not giving the ball to the officials is grouped in with the other delay situations, and in the absence of any previous delays, it can be warned. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
Didn't watch the game and have no idea whether there were already "unofficial warnings" given |
Get The Ball ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Delay Warning ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Ambiguous Clauses ...
Quote:
We probably need a Forum member who is very knowledgeable in NCAA-W rules to to confirm or deny. NCAA-W Rule 4 Section 9 Delay Art. 1. A delay is any action that impedes the progress or continuity of the game. Such actions include, but are not limited to: a. Failure to supply scorers with data per Rule 3-4.1; b. Consuming a full minute by not being ready when it is time to start either half or any overtime; c. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or by preventing continuous play, such as but not limited to, followers or bench personnel entering the playing court before player activity has been terminated. When the delay does not interfere with play, it shall be ignored, and play shall be continued or be resumed at the point of interruption; d. Repeatedly delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly put into play, such as delaying the administration of a throw-in or free throw by engaging in a team huddle anywhere on the playing court; e. Failure to have the court ready for play after the final horn to end any timeout; f. Attempting to gain an advantage by interfering with the ball after a goal or by failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a whistle is blown; or g. The opponents of the thrower-in having any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Art. 2. One team warning shall be given for each of the delays in Rule 4-9.1.d through .g. Each warning shall be reported to the official scorer. Thereafter, a technical foul shall be assessed for the delay that has previously received a team warning. |
The operative word is "or" which means the first part of that sentence applies one thing and the other is simply not giving the officials the ball. It did not say "and." It said, "or."
What advantage in the game does take place if you do not give the ball to the nearest official? I cannot think of one. Because this is usually done when there is a clear dead ball (not after a made basket). OR conjunction conjunction: or 1. used to link alternatives. "a cup of tea or coffee" 2. introducing a synonym or explanation of a preceding word or phrase. "the espionage novel, or, as it is known in the trade, the thriller" Peace |
Independent And Dependent Clauses ...
Quote:
Quote:
However, not necessarily in this case (common basketball sense applies here, how can a team gain an advantage by doing this), but in similar sentence (maybe not specifically related to basketball), that may not be so easily understood using common sense. I'm sure that speaking in a particular manner (with pregnant pauses), can make it seem that the introductory statement "attempting to gain an advantage by interfering with the ball after a goal or by failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a whistle is blown.", can make it appear that the introductory statement "attempting to gain an advantage" applies to both clauses; "interfering with the ball after a goal" as well as "failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official". Quote:
This rule could somehow be written better (maybe added punctuation, possibly a semicolon between "goal" and "or") so that we are 100% sure that the introductory statement "attempting to gain an advantage" absolutely does not apply to "failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official". I think that chapmaja and Mr. Baumgartner might agree with me. However, to basketball officials, how it's currently written is probably just fine. I (a high school official) believe that I know the purpose and intent of the rule and what the rule means, just not sure that it would hold up in a court of law with non-basketball-official attorneys, judges, and jurors parsing words in this somewhat complex compound sentence. Here's another complex compound sentence high school rule that can leave some officials confused by independent clauses with the word "or": https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1049088 |
If we're parsing English (and IANAG - I am not a grammarian) and if you connect the two parts of the rule,
"Such actions include, but are not limited to ... attempting to gain an advantage by interfering with the ball after a goal or by failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official after a whistle is blown", the second use of the word "by" indicates that the "failing to immediately pass" is a method of gaining an advantage. If that's not the intent, the rule should be reworded. Just adding a comma or semi-colon can't fix that. Was it disrespectful, though? |
Thank You Mr. Baumgartner ...
Quote:
If we were studying something I was interested in (Antigone, The Iliad, The Odyssey, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Hamlet, Animal Farm, Catch-22, The Old Man and the Sea, Moby Dick, The Pearl, Crime and Punishment, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, The Call of the Wild), I could often get A's. However, if we were studying something I was not at all interested in (The Scarlet Letter, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Ethan Frome), I would be lucky to get C's. Vocabulary? Fuhgeddaboudit! |
Disrespectful ...
Quote:
Kids (and coaches) today just don't know the rule, so I educate them. "Do you know that I can charge you with a technical foul for that? Now please go and get me the ball." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
I also tend to be very direct with players when they do disrespectful stuff, especially if it is not obvious to everyone. Players tend to get the message or they fall in line. I have even had players apologize for their behavior as well. But again what Clark did was a reaction to a foul she did not like. The official was not having it and T'd her up. They did not care who she was. Good for that official. Peace |
Complex Compound Sentence ...
Quote:
My point was that one could possibly read this complex compound sentence, with multiple clauses, in a different way. It probably could be written better, and I believe that chapmaja and jmwking may agree with me. |
Quote:
|
Keep Your Eyes On The Players ...
Quote:
I almost lost a basketball this past year. It somehow disappeared after a call was made. I asked the players, "Wheres' the ball?". They didn't know. A parent yelled from the bleachers that the ball rolled out an open gym door. I looked into doorway and saw classrooms with open doors and a downstairs stairwell. No way was I making a trek to find that ball. I asked the coach for a new ball and she said that it must be somewhere. She did find it. It hadn't left the gym, as the parent claimed, but rolled, hidden, behind a trash can near the door. |
Purpose And Intent ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
T calls a foul in the backcourt and goes to report. L is standing near midcourt, on opposite side from table and is clearly asking for the ball from a player who is holding it behind his back probably 10 feet away. They have a short conversation and at the end of it, the player just drops the ball (while it's still behind his back) and it bounces away from both of them. |
Delay ...
Quote:
Quote:
|
Angel Reese's NIL Value Leaps ...
Quote:
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. |
Why are there like seven paragraphs that have nothing to do with officiating?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk |
Followup On Taunting ...
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Moderators ????
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...
|
Thread Contributions ...
Quote:
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. |
@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. |
Introduce A New Aspect To The Discussion ...
Quote:
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? |
Ramblin Man (The Allman Brothers Band, 1973) ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nothing I said had anything to do with your behavior. I stick to the sport and discussion of officiating. Peace |
Intelligent Contributions ...
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Peace |
Goal Setting ...
Quote:
Quote:
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). Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Analytical ...
Quote:
However, as an analytical type person, I expressed an opinion (shared by a few) that the rule language could be better written from a strictly logical and grammatical (not basketball) point of view (same thing true for a few high school rules, see slapping the backboard, a complex compound sentence rule only made perfectly clear by a Point Of Emphasis and a casebook play, both based on purpose and intent). |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10am. |