Last year we had a fun thread on the stupid comments the announcers made, so I thought I'd start another one this year.

To tip it off:
One of the commentators on the Wake/VCU game attempted to explain the rule about the clock stopping on made baskets in the last minute of the 2nd half. Wake scored to take a 75-73 lead with 1:04 on the clock. The game clock continued to run, correctly, as VCU tried to inbound. He first commented that the clock couldn't run below 1:00 while they were inbounding. VCU then excuted an inbounds pass and their coach called a TO. The clock continued to run after the whistle for the TO for a couple of seconds. Upon looking at the monitor the officials reset it to 59.8 seconds.
He justified this by saying that's .2 for the human element, you have to allow for the timer to stop the clock.
That's the human element there.

I had originally put this in the "Tourney Officials" thread:



Only 2:09 into his first game (UMD-UTEP), and Billy Packer has already blown an interpretation. Clear BI (both hitting the net and smacking the ball out of the cylinder) by UMD - Packer starts going on about how "the ball was on its way up" and "the ball had no chance of going in."

Of course, we know neither is a requirement for BI but, more importantly, the ball had a pretty damn good chance of going in on a bounce.

What actually happened in this situation that the official were looking at the monitor was that the clock stopped when an official whistled for a time-out, then accidentally was started again and ran for about 1.5 seconds, then stopped again. This timing error had nothing to do with the basket made with 1:05 left.

In reference to Steve Welmer:

"The Arnold Palmer of college referees - always adjusting his pants."

the airball travel myth
 

Nevada's first shot was an airball from about 5 feet. The shooter runs it down and steps on the end line while trying to make a save. Ian Eagle says, "I don't know if he can touch that ball." After the official blows the whistle to call the OOB violation, not a travel. His partner, Jim Spanarkle, replies, "He can't."

[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 18th, 2004 at 07:11 PM]

Same game, after a block/charge call that correctly went for MSU and really wasn't that close, announcer says, "You have to give the offensive player the right of way when he is going to the basket aggressively. He gets the benefit of the doubt."
Huh?

There was a comment from the announcers that they were going to start a Welmer count. How many times durnig the game will he fix his pants.

:D

I only have 20 fingers and toes! Can we go per 4 minute media timeout break???

Timeouts
 

In regard to the 0.4 on the clock at the end of Dayton/DePaul OT1 - rebound was at about 1.2, you can see the hand go up at 0.3 to grant the timeout, Duke Edsall reset the clock to 0.4.

Billy Packer starts saying that the clock should be around 1 second because that's when THE REQUEST was made!

To heck with a tape of Howler Monkeys, I think a tape of Billy Packer would be better to use for training.

Not that it's really relevant to this thread, but in the NBA, that really is the rule. The clock stops any time the ball is not in play during the last minute of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters or during the last 2 minutes of the 4th quarter or any OT period.

Quiet day on Friday - I suspect this thread will be busy today with Billy Packer's pod back in action . . .


Got the first one from the women's tourney today. During the Chatanooga/Rutgers game, shot goes over the backboard (maybe - the camera angle didn't show well whether it was over the board or not), and the announcer says that that's legal - "It can go over the backboard, it just can't touch the top."

Glad to see the women's tourney has its share of Packers. :rolleyes:

Syracuse/UMD
 

Syracuse player gets called for a team control foul:

Packer: "Uh - there's an illegal handoff right there."
Nantz: "And that's his third."


Is my rulebook missing pages?

Syracuse redux
 

UMD player fouls out.

Nantz: "With no timeouts, this gives them sixty seconds to talk things over."

:rolleyes:

When are the networks going to wise up and hire a former official to work these broadcasts? Most of us have played, some of us have coached, and all of us know the rules better than almost any player or coach.

We have all seen enough ball to know the nuances of the game well enough to comment on strategy.

At least with a ref on the tube we would not hear the constant, "He got called for the reach,there Jim."

Ann Meyers. I'm not sure who's worse.

Something tells me that the guys who would get hired to do these games would be the same refs who actually call "over the back," "reaching," "hack," and travel on an inbounds violation.

Ok St. vs. Memphis, 11:00 mark (or so) in 1st half, Ok St, player swats layup attempt off the backboard while the ball is on the way up.

Announcer says, "There won't be any basket interfence on that."

I will insert the announcer names after they identifiy themselves. They all sound alike at this point.

"Bad Call"
 

Watching NC State - Vandy, not sure who the announcer was with this.

Vanderbilt gets a steal (down 6 with 2 or so to go), running to the basket, State gets a foul on the breakaway, called an intentional.

Announcers claim that the offensive player ran into the defender's path (at least he didn't claim it should have been a team control foul). When you look on the replay, though, the NC State player put his hand on the dribblers' shoulder, and pulled the guy down from behind.

If that's not intentional, I don't know what is.

KU Pregame
 

This was on the jayhawk radio network as I was forced to listen to the game on the radio as my better half (wife) wanted to run some "errands"

N-E-Way, I am not sure who the guys are but they were talking about how Wayne Simien reinjured his groin when he slipped the other night against UIC. The broadcaster says, "It is the officials job to make sure that the floor isn't slick." WHAT? I know for a fact that isn't in the officials manual.

Re:
 

I could be wrong, but I believe the analyst was Len Elmore. I am 99% sure the PBP guy was Gus Johnson, and I believe it was Elmore who immediately said "Bad call" when the intentional foul was called.

I was appalled both as an official (of only a couple of months) and a broadcaster (of many years).

The guy couldn't have been doing anything but just fouling the offensive player to foul him - and since Stupid Foul isn't in the rule book, Intentional Foul will have to do.

The NCAA would be wise at tourney time to do what the NFL does now for all of their games. Put Hank Nichols and some officiating supervisors in a "war room" with all of the games televised and make a hotline available between the annonucing crews and the war room for all unusual situations that require a rules explanation or interpretation.

Re: Re:
 

It was. Mr. Vitale said in an interview on sportscenter that he totally agreed with Mr. Elmore!

Who????????
 

Can anybody tell me who likes these announcers?? How do they get their assignments??? Packer is one of the worst announcers in the history of TV broadcasting...yet he gets the prestigious assignment of the NCAA tournament?? I'm truly baffled every single year this guy gets re-hired to butcher up the tournament yet again!!!

How can this guy continue to get hired when he is SO BAD!!!!!!!????????

Re: Who????????
 

What I wonder is why the coaches put up with it. Packer is just as dorky about coaching strategy and psychology as he is about reffing, isn't he? I'd think even if the networks wouldn't listen to the refs, they'd heed the coaches.

Packer bashing
 

Bill Simmons wrote this article for ESPN, but it could have been stolen from BktBallRef.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/040323

When Jim Nantz jokingly asked Billy Packer if he would give Wake Forest a pep talk before Thursday's St. Joe's game, did I really hear Packer shoot him down with the words, "I try not to interject myself with specific teams"?

1. If Packer is really trying not to "interject" himself with specific teams, why does he manage to interject himself into some sort of ruckus every year?

2. Why would Packer take the St. Joe's-Wake Forest assignment when he knows his presence will cast a shadow on the game? Is there a bigger possible interjection?

3. If Billy Packer disappeared from the NCAAs tomorrow, would you miss him?


All of the above is great but then we get:

"2. I threw the Gonzaga-Nevada game in nearly every one of my Saturday parlays, thinking the Zags' money line was a lock. Within 10 minutes, I locked out. It was a classic "No F*****g Way Game" out of the "Madden" video series, the one where you're down 21-0 to the computer before you even know what happened.

It was unbelievable. Turiaf picked up two fouls in 150 seconds. Stepp started out 2 for 10. Some skinny white dude on Nevada started draining fallaway threes. The officiating was so impossibly one-sided, I actually called one of my friends to make sure the back spasms weren't causing me to hallucinate. I've never seen anything like it. Even Dick Bavetta must have been embarrassed."

"And yes, I'm headed to Vegas this weekend -- bad back and all. Hell, I may even gamble with real money. Stay tuned.)"

Hey, so am I maybe I'll find this clown and give him a piece of my mind.

Packer in the Pitt/OSU game, after Krauser picks up his 2nd foul late in the 1st half on a PC, says something about the defender putting one foot on the baseline. I have no idea what the NCAA book says on this, but I know that we are never going to get this new rule accepted in HS.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 25th, 2004 at 07:19 PM]

Re: Packer bashing
 

Soooo...uhmmmmm...wtf are you talking about?

It already is a HS rule: Rule 4.23.2(a) states that in order to obtain legal guarding position a guard must have both feet touching the playing court. I don't know what the NCAA rule is, nor did I see the play, but this is an editorial change that was adopted this year in NFHS.

Hopefully this post doesn't qualify as a defense of Billy Packer

I don't know if I heard it right because I was in a loud room, but it sounded like, in the Pitt-OSU game, after a clean block by an OSU player on a drive to the hoop, that Packer said that it should have been a foul because the defender was beat and he "reached in," even though there was no contact. I almost fell out of my chair, did he actually say this or am I mishearing him.

Everyone on this board knows it is a new HS rule. You just misunderstood my meaning, which was that with people like Packer out there still preaching for the defender to put a foot on the line, it will be next to impossible for us to get the fans, coaches, etc., to accept our calling it the new/correct way.

St. Joe's beats Wake, 84-80. Billy Packer eats his pizza.

dividing by 3
 

Some day I expect to see Team A miss a free throw that would have put them up by 34 and hear Billy Packer announce
"That's a big one, because now it's still an 11 possession game."

Geesh.. you guys are tough on Packer. Of course he's a little annoying.. but, he's not the worst announcer in the world. I think they keep him.. cuz he is a familiar voice.. and he doesn't really get in the way of watching the game. Think what it would be like listening to some "other" voice.. with the same mistakes packer makes. I think letters to CBS would follow. Heck for that matter, I'd "guess" alot of the tournament officials are selected for the same reason... they have been there, they know the calls that need to be made, and they are not gonna mess up the game on national tv. Anyhow, players make mistakes, officials make mistakes, coaches make mistakes, so do announcers.. and his are compounded.. cuz he's an easy target. I'd venture to say.. he's tryin real hard and likely knowingly does some things for ratings (ie St Joe's coach thing). Controversial statements on plays.. it's all about ratings.. and apparently he gets the job done in that area.

Is it asking too much for him to read a rule book for once in his life?... I mean, he played NCAA basketball for goodness sakes.

We all make mistakes, but we also do whatever we can to be prepared for our games. His lack of rule knowledge shows me that he isn't willing to put in the time to be properly prepared.

Z

Really? Then who is?

Too be honest.. i'm not a big fan of the female that does the Men's stuff. Don't know her name.. but, just tough to listen to her.. doing a men's game. It's not a female thing.. just don't enjoy listening.
Tough to think of someone worse than packer.. but, im sure there is someone spouting BS out there.. worse than he.
I'd have to say Bilas is the best... just for the record. Nance doing golf is very very good.. basketball not his calling.. but, he's ok.

Nevadaref, you're right, I misunderstood what you were saying as I thought I had.

I think the one announcer that has gotten on my nerves the most is Bill Raftery with his man to man defense. I am waiting for him to leave for a bit to change his pants.

Re: dividing by 3
 

Good thing he's not doing Illinois-Duke, with Illinois up 13-11, it would have been a 0.667 posession game! :eek:

IMHO - the best commentator ever was Rick Barry. He used to work NBA games on TBS. Unfortunately, he was way to sophisticated for the average fan so he didn't last too long.

He gave me an insight into the game that changed my whole perspective. Kind of like Earl Strom's book.

Without question, Bill Walton. I think he was the most grating voice, and the most idiotic commentator I've ever heard.

[B]Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner![/B]
 

Wow, it's not even close. Walton rolls over his competition like Jordanian Bulls. :) Walton would have to be the preseason, mid-season, post-season, and off-season pick for #1.

Ref goes to the monitor in the Duke-Xavier game to correct a two point shot that was originally called a three.

Announcer, after the call is corrected: "It's good to see Mike Kitts get one right."

I guess rainmaker and I are the only ones watching the women's games (more drama, great storylines, better play execution) but here's one I could hardly believe:

Ann Meyers, who has a basketball resume as long as her arm, doing the Penn State-Notre Dame game, says about a player who shot an airball and caught "last time I checked, that was a travel, wasn't it"? Then Mike Patrick (football guy, so we'll forgive him) agrees!

She's my nomination for a close second behind Walton as the worst announcer of all time. She's another one that's always second guessing coaches, and even programs with remarks like "I doubt she'll have her job another season" and "She's just never been able to get her players to finish that play." Why in the world they keep her, I have no comprehension. I think Stacy Dales-Shuman is a little dim, but she's basically positive and safe. She doesn't have that jock edge to her voice though..

PS to Pa Coach: I'm not watching them now, since I don't have cable. I'll see them in a day or two, after my friend gets me the tapes.

Stacey Dales-Schuman is terrible. However, I will say being an analyst, especially one of those talking heads in the studio not at the game, must be really hard. I'm pretty close with the Penn State program so I think I have a pretty good understanding on what they do and how they try to do it. Schuman came on after the game going on and on about how they'll have to go inside against UConn, and she thinks PSU needs more balance offensively. Penn State has four 1,000-point scorers (only 9th D1 team to have them simultaneously) and all four are guards! Their three post players include two freshmen and a junior who is playing at about 75% health. She doesn't know anything about the team, but she is second-guessing a coach with 600 career wins, and one of only four coaches to win two WBCA Coach of the Year awards. So this makes me realize that most of the time, when one of these people speaks, they are really just filling their 20 seconds with whatever comes to mind and not really providing me any insight.

Dales-Schuman was bugging me after watching Minnesota's first round game last week; calling a particular foul call "horrible" and game changing. Actually, all she did was agree with Reece Davis, who was furious about the call. I saw the play, and thought it was no more than a questionable call. Hardly horrible, and not worthy of their vitriol. Stacy didn't seem to want to get into it, though, and merely told Reece that she agreed with him. Still, her insight seems lacking.

Okay, I take it back about D-S being positive. I haven't seen many of the games yet this year. I think we can all agree on "dim".

If listening to him for two halves isn't enough already, Raftery drove me over the edge last night right about the time where Deng charges and he characterizes it as a "shame." In his world, big name school screws up, its a shame. If Xavier commits same foul, it's great defense by a well-coached program.

He also defended Duke players on a couple of fouls, one of which he accused the ref of anticipating the foul. When you watch the reply, the Xavier player got whacked in the head and arm on the follow-through. Does Raftery notice this even after two angles show the same thing - NO!!!

Guess he was anticipating the replay rather than letting it develop and making the right call ;)

Dim? Perhaps. It's obvious she got hired for her pretty face rather than for in depth analysis. Either that, or she's just too shy to express herself. Either way, she's wasting a seat, IMO.

Or maybe she majored in broadcasting in college, or in Sports Journalism, or some such?

Are you guys CRAZY. WALTON is awesome... Do you really think he in fact... believes the rubbish he spews. He knows what he is doing. It's entertainment.. remember.. and he is a "character" in the whole makeup. Honestly I love.. when some guy gets hacked.. with no call.. Walton "That's a fooooooooooulllll". It's comical so it makes it entertaining. NBC exec's aren't stupid.. if you think they are.. your probably the nieve one.

There are plenty of women's basketball players out there, not sure why they picked Dales Schuman other than rainmakers suggestion. Looks obviously matter (just as they do for male hosts - face it), but ESPN generally has pretty high standards in terms of people's capacity to speak intelligently. If you watched any of the Dream Job stuff, it was interesting to see the types of things they look at when choosing an anchor. Their analysts have to have some of those skills, such as providing concise and insightful analysis.

Despite their effort to put quality heads on the screen, they seem to be stuggling to find good women's bball people, and have for the past couple of years. I have always felt that this was a huge weakness in their studio lineup (compared with any other sport they cover). By comparison, they have had very strong women's announcers for years in tennis, women who can cover men's and women's tennis. It's a shame with all the women's players they have that they can't find any that are more competent on camera.

He is generally uninformative and spews rubbish that we may recognize as that, but fans take to be gospel. Not a positivie influence on the game. By comparison, the NFL and its broadcasters strive to have people who know what they are talking about, especially on the A crews, and the last attempt at pure entertainment ended with Dennis Miller on MNF.

Some are more easily entertained than others.

I freely admit that I have no problem with muting ESPN and just watching Stacy Dales-Schuman.

Perhaps it's a self-perpetuating problem. Players think, "Yuch, I don't want to be an announcer -- they're all so dumb" and so the intelligent ones go a different direction.

Looks are important, but decent make-up and a fancy hair-do will work for most women -- just as they do for most men. I mean, Walton was most definitely not good-looking. And Packer is .... never mind.

For you Packer fans out there...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...=murphy/040329

Right now on ESPN, Mike Patrick is insisting that the HORN is what takes precedence. He says the heirarchy is horn, lights, clock at zero.
The question is whether or not Turasi's 3 at the buzzer to end the first half in the UConn/PSU game should count.

Well, my understanding different.

And to then have to listen to Reece Davis, Dales-Schuman and Fortner talk at the half-time report about how the official lost the game for Baylor was killing me. Fortner asked the Baylor coach, "What did the official say to you?" To which she replied, "He wouldn't come over to talk to me"......well duh!!!! Anyone have a match and a little bit of gasoline for that fire? Who cares, the official doesn't have to say anything. He made the call so they need to leave it alone.

Then Fortner wanted to know if the Baylor coach thought that the call was made because it was Tenneessee and they are a powerhouse. C'mon, where did they find Fortner? She is garbage.

I just spent some time looking at the rules on http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf
and I cannot seem to find anything definitive. I found the TV monitor rules in section 6 of appendix 3 at the end. But it doesn't tell me if the officials go with the clock, light, or horn.
I remember a Texas/Providence game earlier this season in which the light was on before the try was released, but the clock still showed a tenth of a second and the ruling was that the goal counted.
Could someone please provide something akin to the NFHS 1-14 and 2-12-7.


[Edited by Nevadaref on Mar 29th, 2004 at 07:38 PM]

I want to know who died and made Fortner the queen of officiating? I also thought that the Baylor coach was wrong when she claimed it was an "over the back" foul on the missed lay-up. I didn't see that in the play at all. Even my wife agrees with me on that one and that doesn't happen too often.

What ends the game?
 

In the Texas-Providence game, the clock showed 0.0, but the light wasn't on yet, so they counted the shot. It seemed counterintuitive to me, but I seem to remember the college officials on here saying that it was horn, light, then clock. I don't know for sure, I'm a long ways from being at a level where replay is even an option to use.

CoachW

Section 7. Art. 2. c. 1. begins "After the game-clock horn sounds to end the game", so it looks like the game-clock horn is what ends the game.

Packer on the FF
 

With a little over 3 minutes to play in the first half, a high pass is thrown to a GT player who is running down the sideline on the tableside. He tips the ball before being able to gather it in, while taking a couple of steps forward. The OSU partisan crowd boos, half of the OSU bench signals traveling, and our favorite Billy Packer says, "He walked for the second time there and it wasn't called." :(

BZZZZZT!
 

I would like to see CBS hire a good official (a volunteer from this forum) to sit next to Packer during the telecasts and zap him with a TASER when he wrongly criticizes a referee's decision. He'd probably be a quick learner.

Re: Packer on the FF
 

Good catch - I heard that one too. It was a good no-call - there was no control.

Re: Re: Packer on the FF
 

I don't remember who he was talking about, but somebody missed a shot and Packer said, "I'm gonna say he was fouled there. He doesn't miss that badly by himself."

Typical howler monkey comment. Pathetic.

Ben Gordon of Connecticut after he shot a 12 ft. airball.:rolleyes:

"The way this game is being officiated, the players aren't adjusting."

Yea, it's the ref's fault.

said same thing again tonight in Duke/UConn
 

He said something of the same tonight in Duke/UConn:

"the way this game is being called, neither team is able to get into the flow of their offense" Billy Packer

U.Conn press conference question
 

(paraphrased) Is it difficult to get into the flow of a game when it is interrupted every 15 seconds by whistles?

Made it sound like somebody left a window open and let stray whistles keep slipping in.

WOW on Digger!
 

Digger just gave the UConn/Duke officials an F on the ESPN postgame roundtable chat.
Dickie V stated his opinion that JJ Redick was fouled on the final drive to the basket.

FWIW, I saw an interview with Duke Coach K and he displayed tremendous class about that play. He said that we thought JJ would either score or go to the foul line, but he didn't and that's the way it goes.
I was stunned that he didn't whine about it all. He just moved up a notch in my book.

Re: WOW on Digger!
 

I thought Packer's whining about the refs was completely out of line. I ddin't see ANY calls that were questionable or really even borderline. It was a rough game with a lot of sloppy play and the refs did a good job of keeping it from getting out of control. In other words, it wasn't the refs fault that the players "couldn't get into the flow". What a novel concept.

Agreed. It was not a pretty game, but also was not a poorly called game.

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]

Re: Re: WOW on Digger!
 

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]
http://213.239.157.21/smilies/tombstone.gif
Duke! :D

Holy dexter.

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

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

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

***************
:rolleyes:
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]

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.

Bynum wasn't fouled.
 

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.

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.

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.