Yea, what he said!

Ahhh, now I finally see what you're saying: even though the game was called consistently throughout by the entire crew and the officating had no negative impact on the outcome the refs did a bad job simply because these players and coaches working at the highest level of ameteur ball could not adjust.

OK, thanks for your input.

BTW, THE cardinal rule of officiating is to call the game consistently within the rules such that the better team on the floor that game wins. I think we agree the game in question was called this way. Armed with this new information you might now be able to reconcile the difference in officating you percieved between all the other games you saw this year and this one particular game.

Let's just agree to disagree - you seem to believe that officials should come in and try to change the way the game is going to be played compared to the rest of the season and tournament. I think that there should be some measure of game-to-gmae consistency, especially when you get to the last 3 games of the year, and suposedly the top officials. they should be aware of the overall context in which they are calling a game.

They clearly came in with an intent to call a tight game. If that was directed from above, then maybe they shouldn't have interfered. If they worked it out prior to the game as a crew, I think it's a shame.

So it's not that I don't get your point, I do. I also disagree firmly. So be it.

I never said you were either of those things.

Okay. You and I are on the same page with that.

Yeah - don't think I ever accused you of that.

There's going to be lots of discussions on the Duke/UConn game, suffice it to say "how do we know who's right?"

The only thing I REALLY disagree with is your assertion that they made a lot of calls they didn't need to make, and missed a bunch. And the bit about how everyone was confused. Calhoun wasn't confused - he adjusted his game plan, and it worked. Coach K left his three big men in the game - a game where he knew calls were going to be made - and paid the price.

You talk about officials' unwillingness to say when we've had an off-day. Let's just say you know better than to say something like that HERE, where you've witnessed the contrary hundreds of times now.

I think Mike Krzyzewski got out-coached. I think Duke had three trips on offense in the final 2:00 where they jacked up stupid shots instead of working the clock.

Having said all of this - a couple other posts implied that I don't value your contributions here. Nothing could be further from the truth. Time and time again, I've said how great it is to have good, open-minded coaches like you (and P.C.) that we can have honest discussions with. Hmmmm, like this one.

Warm up the couch! Ice up the beer!

Xavier game
 

Did anyone think that the Duke/UConn game was called very similar to the Blue Devils' previous game vs. Xavier? In the Duke/Xavier game, the way the game was officiated had a larger effect on XU than Duke. And on Saturday night, the roles were reversed.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by canuckrefguy

Quote:

The only thing I REALLY disagree with is your assertion that they made a lot of calls they didn't need to make, and missed a bunch.

I didn't say that they did both. You missed my point, probably my fault.

What I said was the Duke UCONN refs called much that hasn't been called all year, don't think they missed anything big. Then I went back to the assumption that you call only what needs to be called. If you buy that assumption, then either the Duke-Uconn refs were right about "what needs to be called," and all the refs in games I watched this winter were wrong, because they clearly didn't think these things needed to be called. Alternatively , all the refs were right this winter that this kind of stuff shouldn't be called a foul, which leads to an opposite conclusion for the Duke Uconn ref crew.

As for coaches being confused, I don't think they were. I don't think either were happy with the calls, Coach K looked more upset I would agree. And he also took the risks and paid for them, partly because he has no strong depth in the post. I thought that the players looked a little confused by all the calls well into the second half.

Everybody says to simply adjust, and clearly that can be done by players. But I would argue that you work all winter and build certain habits, and are asked to change them in one game because a crew decides to "tighten things up" before the game has even commenced. Having dealt with players for some time, it is hard to try to change their habits for one game and detracts from their play in other respects. They have to reconsider everything they normally do on defense, rather than react based on how they have played all winter. Their thoughts are not strictly on their opponent, but on how the game is being called. And that is not a positive, IMO.

Everybody says to simply adjust, and clearly that can be done by players. But I would argue that you work all winter and build certain habits, and are asked to change them in one game because a crew decides to "tighten things up" before the game has even commenced. Having dealt with players for some time, it is hard to try to change their habits for one game and detracts from their play in other respects. They have to reconsider everything they normally do on defense, rather than react based on how they have played all winter. Their thoughts are not strictly on their opponent, but on how the game is being called. And that is not a positive, IMO.
[/B][/QUOTE]I don't share your opinion at all on this one. First, it is simply your hypothesis that the crew decided themselves to tighten things up. That's one comment that I didn't expect from you. You don't know that for sure. They may have been told to crack down by NCAA officials' supervisors. Who knows? They may also have been calling the contact consistently with previous games that they individually called- games that didn't have nearly the amount of physical play in them that Duke/UConn did. That's a judgement call on individual watchers too. As for players changing their habits, that usually happens in almost every single game also. You get 3 or 4 fouls on you, you are gonna change your approach in that game if you have any smarts at all. If not, you deserve to foul out. People are seeming to forget here that the officials aren't committing all these fouls. All they're doing is calling them.

The bottom line in this one is that the game was consistently, equitably and fairly called. The officials did <b>not</b> determine the outcome of this game. Whether it was well called isn't really that important as long as the preceding is true. JMO.

Actually, my hypothesis is either the crew decided to tighten it up, or they were told to - sometimes I am lazy in how I phrase it - my fault there.

Individual players do adjust when they get fouls called, normally because they are playing stupidly and picking up fouls they shouldn't. That can and does happen, and should happen. With this particular game, I saw entire teams of players looking a bit confused over all the calls, and not picking up stupid fouls. Not the same thing, IMO.

back on subject of announcer babble
 

As much as it's going to kill everyone here - we should probably give credit when someone says something profound or at least moderately intelligent.

One thing I've been pondering since the end of the Duke/Uconnn game is one risky comment Billy Packer made during the game I think fairly early in the second half when Okafer had 2 fouls and Williams had 3. He said in regards to these two players something like the following:

I hate to say it, but he was right. But then again, he had a 50/50 chance of being right so maybe we don't have to admit he was right - just lucky.

Coach, I have to disagree as well. I've heard K say on more than one occasion that he uses the first 4 minutes of the game to learn how the game is going to be called and the first media timeout of the game to get his players adjusted to the officiating.

I can see that...sure...these players and coaches have reached the pinnacle of their sport yet they cannot figure out how to adjust to how the game is being called. Sure...I mean, it's not like they've been doing this 356 days a year for their entire lives or anything.

Maybe they're all wrong
 

Every complainer seems to be saying that all year fouls were called a certain way and now in the Final Four it's a different ballgame (an over-simplification of the general gist of the discussions). Did anyone ever stop to consider that the rest of the year the calls were by less-qualified crews, and now we're seeing the best of the best and this is the way games should have been called all year?

We should be learning from these guys and not knocking them.

Just a thought.

correction
 

There's actually 365 days in a year - it's in the rule book somewhere (but then again, some folks don't like the rules).

Can you imagine?

A full year, 356 days of [u]bast![/b]! :D

The players/coaches should not have to adjust to the officiating. The officials need to adjust to the level of talent.

Too many times this year, I have noticed that an official will work an mid-major Conf game one night, and then a high-major game the next night and the high-major game will get hacked up beyond belief. It is not the same game that is being officiated from night-to-night because the talent level differs, and I think the officials have a hard time adjusting to the talent.

I have coached at the high-major level, and have seen that too often.

That being said, I also have a complaint regarding the fact that West Coast officials are working a game pitting two East Coast teams. There is no way that those officials have seen the intensity level of a game played by two East Coast teams replicated on the West Coast during the season. I think that played a part in David Hall calling everything-and Olandis Poole letting the players play.

All coaches ask for is consistency, and unfortunately, with officials working 5 (or 6) out of a possible 7 nights a week, it is hard for them to stay sharp throughout the season. I don't think that is asking too much.