Announcer Babble

[rainmaker]

The other thing Packer or Nance kept saying near the end of the Duke/UConn game was that "those statistics will get to the average sooner or later." My husband and I spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what the Dexter (or is it un-capitalized?) that meant.

Went back and listened to it again on the tape. The exact wording was, "...those statistical averages will eventually balance out."

[Edited by rainmaker on Apr 4th, 2004 at 03:05 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by BushRef

He didn't whine about it at all?? PLEASE!! Were you not watching when it happened? He was SCREAMING....FOUL!! FOUL!! THAT'S A FOUL!! Until he can learn to sit on his a$$ even when he gets reamed, he will NEVER move up a notch in my book. Duke got more calls their way tonight then they had calls go against them, and they still managed to lose the game. THANK GOODNESS!!!

Of course, he was irate during the game. His emotions are at a peak and his JOB is to everything he can to help his team win. If he can scream and yell without getting a T, and thinks it might help his team then he should do that. That is what he is getting paid for.
Now what I was talking about was his after the game, public interview statement. He phrased it in just about the best possible manner. He was calm and did show class.

[ChuckElias]

I thought the game was called very well. Yes, there were a LOT of fouls and a lot of guys in foul trouble. But I honestly don't remember seeing anything that I said "Ooo, that was ticky-tack". It was called tight (as I think it needed to be) and it was consistent for 40 minutes. They called the same game at the beginning, middle and end of the game. Probably very hard to do in that game.

I wondered to myself during the game if the reason this game was called so tightly had anything to do with the extremely physical style of the game in which UCONN won its national championship. The officials allowed that game to become very physical. Anyone think that maybe somebody said to the officials (or they said among themselves), "Don't let this degenerate into a scrum like last time"?

[Hawks Coach]

I would agree it was consistent throughout, but I am not sure that I would agree it was well called. these are two teams from physical conferences, accustomed to physical games. When you talk about advantage disadvantage, you have to consider the teams involved.

I have many of Connecticut and Duke's recent games on tape. None of them were called this tightly, nor were any of the ACC games I watched all year. I don't think that a national semifinal is the time to tighten things up. Everything could be called a foul, there is no question of that. The question is "have those fouls been called all year for either of these teams," and I think the answer to that is no.

For two big time programs, i would consider many of the calls to have been ticky tack compared to what I have seen called in this year's tournament, and the semifinal is not the place to make that kind of change. I don't know that one team benefited more than another, but it does impact the way the game is played, and I don't think it was a positive impact.

[CoachW]

Coach K showed class?

This is from ESPN. com article:
"Coach K blamed this time on the refs, lambasting them at the end of the game: 'You killed us. You killed us. You killed us. You killed us.' Duke's coach stood by his call to keep his big men in the game despite the risk of picking up more fouls."

The last sentence had a lot more to do with them losing than the refs, Okafor sat early and was able to finish the game, Williams and Randolph weren't.

[TriggerMN]

Funny how everybody is whining about Redick being fouled at the end of the Duke/UConn game, but NOBODY is whining about Will Bynum being fouled even more obviously at the end of the GT-OSU game. Why? Because Bynum fought through the foul and made the shot. In that situation in each game, the right call is the no-call. If Coach Krazooski had been on Calhoun's side, he'd have been fine with the call.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I thought the game was called very well. Yes, there were a LOT of fouls and a lot of guys in foul trouble. But I honestly don't remember seeing anything that I said "Ooo, that was ticky-tack". It was called tight (as I think it needed to be) and it was consistent for 40 minutes. They called the same game at the beginning, middle and end of the game. Probably very hard to do in that game.

I wondered to myself during the game if the reason this game was called so tightly had anything to do with the extremely physical style of the game in which UCONN won its national championship. The officials allowed that game to become very physical. Anyone think that maybe somebody said to the officials (or they said among themselves), "Don't let this degenerate into a scrum like last time"?

I think it was obvious at the very first whistle that before the game the officials had decided - or someone decided for them - to call this game tight. And I agree they did a great job.

[Dan_ref]

Hawks Coach, it seems your main points are

1. the game was called in a tight, consistent manner for both sides
2. it was NOT well called because these 2 teams are used to playing a more physical game
3. it was NOT well called because it was a big game.

Agree with this assessment?

If so, are you saying the game is to be controlled by the teams & venue? And not the officials?

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Hawks Coach, it seems your main points are

1. the game was called in a tight, consistent manner for both sides
2. it was NOT well called because these 2 teams are used to playing a more physical game
3. it was NOT well called because it was a big game.

Agree with this assessment?

If so, are you saying the game is to be controlled by the teams & venue? And not the officials?

You are skipping half of my point to twist my argument into something it is not. I am saying that the entire tournament, down to the no-call on Bynum down the stretch of the game immediately preceding this game, has been called much less tightly than this game was. I am saying that officials should consider the context, how preceding games have been reffed, how much contact players can handle (advantage/disadvantage), etc. in determining what is and is not a foul in any game at this level. I am saying that tightening up calls in a manner unlike anything either team has faced in the past few months is an inappropriate way to call a national semifinal.

I wouldnt give the refs an F because they were consistent throughout the game. I wouldn't give them an A because they were inconsistent with how the entire tournament has been called. The calls clearly disrupted the rhythm of the game for both teams. That is not good officiating. These teams were playing no differently than they have for the past two months, the refs called a very different game than has been called for the last two months at this level.

You can defend the refs all you like, but I believe that this one one of the more poorly officiated big games I have seen in several years. One of the refs is the uncle of a good friend of mine. I normally like watching him ref. But it doesn't matter to me, because he was part of a crew that didn't do the kind of job one expects in this type of game. And it is disappointing to have that happen in a national semifinal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
[/B]

You can defend the refs all you like, but I believe that this one one of the more poorly officiated big games I have seen in several years. One of the refs is the uncle of a good friend of mine. I normally like watching him ref. But it doesn't matter to me, because he was part of a crew that didn't do the kind of job one expects in this type of game. And it is disappointing to have that happen in a national semifinal.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Duke!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

You are skipping half of my point to twist my argument into something it is not. I am saying that the entire tournament, down to the no-call on Bynum down the stretch of the game immediately preceding this game, has been called much less tightly than this game was. I am saying that officials should consider the context, how preceding games have been reffed, how much contact players can handle (advantage/disadvantage), etc. in determining what is and is not a foul in any game at this level.

Holy dexter.

Now we've got to consider an entire season's worth of context before making a call.

But what on earth makes you think context was NOT considered during the pregame? If games are getting too physical there is nothing wrong with deciding the trend will stop here and now. The teams need to adjust. They know how to do that.

I am saying that tightening up calls in a manner unlike anything either team has faced in the past few months is an inappropriate way to call a national semifinal.

I know this is what you're saying. That's bulldexter (see my first comment).

You can defend the refs all you like, but I believe that this one one of the more poorly officiated big games I have seen in several years.

Defending them? I'm not defending them.

I have gotten calls from assignors telling me that a particular game I have coming up might be trouble and I need to go in strong. I've also had this type of discussion during a pregame with assignors. You're saying that this type of thing leads to poor officiating. I disagree.

[canuckrefguy]

I think I posted under the wrong thread ("Final Four Officials"), but here's my thoughts on the Duke game:

***************

This kind of stuff really makes me wonder.

The "cardinal rule" included on every NCAA officiating bulletin is "style of play will not dictate officiating". I assume this also extends to a conference's alleged style of play. The Duke-UConn game had A LOT, repeat, A LOT of physical play. Given the teams' recent history and tournament rivalry, the game was a train that could have easily jumped the tracks.

I saw very few, pretty close to NO foul calls that were not legitimate fouls. The only one I wondered about was Duke's 2nd last possession, where the guy drove, got stripped, and fell to the floor. They replayed it, but the camera was blocking out the area of contact. So I guess we'll just have to trust the lead official and his measly 20-30 years of NCAA experience, and God knows how many tournament and final four games.

For crying out loud, if the officials pass on calls, we're blind, dumb, and incompetent. Then a crew comes out, officiates a game CONSISTENTLY, and we hear the typical coach/fan dumb comment "HEY REF, LET 'EM PLAY".

This is why we officials are so quick to shake our heads some of the time - it's because you people can't make up your (Dexter)ing minds!

*****************

BTW, nice how the CBS cameras caught coach K screaming "BULLSH*T" over and over at the refs after that no-call at the end...

[Edited by canuckrefguy on Apr 4th, 2004 at 08:18 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

1. I am not a dumb fan, and furthermore not a Duke fan.

2. I am glad Duke lost, and Connecticut was one of my finalists in the bracket.

3. I have not said Duke lost because the game was poorly called.

That said, I watched a lot of high-level college ball this winter, none of it as closely called as this game. The officials called it that way from the outset. I thought one of the cardinal rules of officiating is call what you need to call. If that is the case, either these guys called plenty they didn't need to call, or their counterparts in all of the other games I watched this winter missed a lot of calls they needed to make. I am going with the former - the latter is too incredible to believe.

Players from both sides were clearly confused, and neither coach was happy. I guess that makes for a well reffed game in your book. Sometimes maybe y'all can recognize that your brethren don't have stellar days.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by TriggerMN
Funny how everybody is whining about Redick being fouled at the end of the Duke/UConn game, but NOBODY is whining about Will Bynum being fouled even more obviously at the end of the GT-OSU game. Why?

Actually, I was going to post something on this earlier, but since you brought it up...
I thought that this was one of the best officiating decisions I have ever seen. The secondary defender came over and hit both the ball and Bynum's hand while it was on the ball. According to the rules that is not a foul. The replay of this was fantasic. A good close-up in slow motion.
The official was patient and calm. He did not react to immediate contact and waited for the play to finish.
It is true that Bynum was strong enough to fight through this and still score. Great play by him. However, even if he does not score, I do not believe that a foul should have been called.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I would agree it was consistent throughout, but I am not sure that I would agree it was well called. these are two teams from physical conferences, accustomed to physical games. When you talk about advantage disadvantage, you have to consider the teams involved.

I have many of Connecticut and Duke's recent games on tape. None of them were called this tightly, nor were any of the ACC games I watched all year. I don't think that a national semifinal is the time to tighten things up. Everything could be called a foul, there is no question of that. The question is "have those fouls been called all year for either of these teams," and I think the answer to that is no.

For two big time programs, i would consider many of the calls to have been ticky tack compared to what I have seen called in this year's tournament, and the semifinal is not the place to make that kind of change. I don't know that one team benefited more than another, but it does impact the way the game is played, and I don't think it was a positive impact.

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
1. I am not a dumb fan, and furthermore not a Duke fan.

2. I am glad Duke lost, and Connecticut was one of my finalists in the bracket.

3. I have not said Duke lost because the game was poorly called.

That said, I watched a lot of high-level college ball this winter, none of it as closely called as this game. The officials called it that way from the outset. I thought one of the cardinal rules of officiating is call what you need to call. If that is the case, either these guys called plenty they didn't need to call, or their counterparts in all of the other games I watched this winter missed a lot of calls they needed to make. I am going with the former - the latter is too incredible to believe.

Players from both sides were clearly confused, and neither coach was happy. I guess that makes for a well reffed game in your book. Sometimes maybe y'all can recognize that your brethren don't have stellar days.

Hawks Coach,
I am writing this just because I want you to know that whether I agree with your opinion of the officiating in this game or not, I value your thoughts and take them seriously. I believe that you have earned that kind of respect from those of us on this board through your past efforts to understand both the rules and officiating practices.
Please continue to post what you think on this board. I for one want to read it.