Well boys......

I am sorry that you feel that Ted V's ego got in the way again last with the Xavier/Texas game, because you were not watching the same game or same highlights that I saw on television, plus you have probably not watched very many big 12 games either during the season.

Barnes was his old and typical self last night whinning about everything and anything to the officials because he was losing. That is vintage Barnes when things do not go his way during a game. Barnes andhis Texas team was beat by a better team, and by a team that wanted the win more then Texas.

Ted V's ego did not get in the way at all last night. Ted did the right thing on both 'T's' he gave to Barnes. Valentine issues the first T. Then he stays table side(because he felt alright with the situation and did not need the option of switching). Next, he politely listens to Barnes and tries to prevent Barnes from getting the second T, but then has no choice but to give the second T because of Barnes choice of language.

No choice? Sure he had a choice.
 

He could have walked away.

But, the clock was stopped, the camera was on him and TV Teddy NEVER walks away when he can stay on camera.

You think some third grader in Idaho gave him his nickname?

TV Teddy knows when he can become the show and he never misses his chance.

I don't really have any bias against Valentine, but I question whether he made a wise choice staying table-side after calling the first T. You have a favored team that's about to lose, and a coach who's lost it. Absolutely issue the first T - that was made apparent by what I saw on TV. But given the situation, why not bail, go opposite, and let the game play out.

We've all been in situations like this, where we KNOW we would've wound up tossing the coach if we'd stayed in the vicinity after whackin' him.

Valentine's proximity to Barnes after the first T was such that I think if he goes opposite, then whatever he has to say to Valentine, he has to make such an *** of himself that 20,000 people see it too, and then if it's necessary, whack him again.

One of the rare times when I agree with the T.V. announcers - it's not Valentine's job to go toe-to-toe with the coach in that situation. I figure just take the path of least resistence, and get the hell out.

Having said all of this, none of us knows what Barnes said after the first T - maybe he called his wife a nasty name, maybe he used the "n" word, who knows?

Those are my views, but in the end, I guess I'm not gonna second-guess a top NCAA official on this one. In the end, it was Barnes who was being a jerk, and Barnes who had the option of just sucking it up and letting the game end.

(I'll just ignore the TROLL in the previous post, who's probably some idiot Texas fan)

No Texas fan at all and no Barnes fan
 

either. I'm not even from that part of the country. However, I've had a belly full of TV Teddy for years. Ever see his business card? In the upper corner is a drawing of two hands making the "T" sign with sparks flying away from it.

Now that's his image and he created it.

BTW, what was the spread? It was a three point game when he 'went to to toe' with Barnes. It finished at 8.

Re: No Texas fan at all and no Barnes fan
 

WTF has the spead got to do with anything? Have some $$$$ riding on the game sis you? I guess that explains it.

You should probably just STFU.

Re: No Texas fan at all and no Barnes fan
 

Hmmmmm, I'm starting to wonder about who this guy really is....

And BTW, the spread, not that it matters, was 3 points, X had the ball with miniscule time left on the clock. Game over.

Re: Re: No Texas fan at all and no Barnes fan
 

Just another fanboy. Definitely not an official. They just come above ground at this time of year to crap on an official; then they sink outa sight- never to be heard from again.

Keep wondering
 

but read the University of Michigan study on officials and gambling and you might understand what I am wondering about.

I have never bet a penny on any sporting event in my life.

No, you don't have a clue who I am. Nor I you. But that doesn't matter here. All that matters is the truth.

Stop defending Teddy Valentine. if you guys policed your own, you wouldn't hear the criticism you hear.

By the way, someone here said the official "passed on" three events of conduct by Xavier on the last three possessions.


please tell me someting. Where is the written authority for an official to "pass on" calling a violation of the rules?

I have asked that question for years, but no one seems able to produce the written authority.

There is a very serious reason for asking that question.

This one too - Who gives officials authority to ever call anything other than every single violation of the rules they see?

Do officials' associations have authority to alter the rules of the game? To advise their members not to enforce violations?

Someone here surely knows these answers and has a copy of the written document allowing officials to "pass on" calls. Surely it exists. Officials wouldn't intentionally allow the rules to be violated without sanction would they?

Just show me.

Re: Keep wondering
 

Why? We have every right to defend an official when the coach is the one that got himself thrown out. It is not our job to walk away or to accomidate coaches. We can stand anywhere we please and mechanically, it is not required for Valentine to even leave his position. The mechanic was created to give coaches the opportunity to be heard from the calling official. Barnes should have walked away. And he did not, that is why he got tossed.

Attend a camp or talk to many officials, you will find out that you do not call "boarderline" calls or plays that are not obvious. That is where the term, "call the obvious" comes from. And it has been written about in many officiating books and Referee Magazine and this site talks about that all the time. And even in the rulebook it talks about applying the "spirit of the rules" and calling things that do put teams at a disadvantage. But if you were an official, you would know that.

Well if you do not have the answer, you need to get out of the house more. You need to buy many publications and subscribe to things that talk about officiating. I officiate 3 sports, and it is very common to talk about not calling things that no one understands or does not jump out at you as an official. And all you have to do is go to a basketball camp for officiating, and that will become very clear from the clinicians and instructors.

Again, you need to get out of the house more or officiate some real ball. Because everything that looks bad is not a violation or against the rules. Especially if you are a coach. Because most things that coaches think are rules, are the furthest from it (feet set to get a PC Foul, getting your own rebound on an air ball, not being able to come back inbounds and make a play on the ball). The list goes on and on.

What does an official's association have to do with altering the rules? I see again, more evidence you know nothing about officiating.

If you are an official, I see you are not a very good one. Mainly because you seem to not understand what "passing on" something even means. It does not mean that a violation or foul has taken place, but it does mean that it was a close play and the official in their judgment decided that there was nothing to call. And because basketball is such a fast sport, there are many places that things happen that might not warrant a call. But then again, you are not a good official to even know that fact. Because if you have been asking this for years, you have not really wanted to find out the answer. The main reason we as officials just to not T up a coach if one foot is out of the coaching box. Does the rules allow us to do that, of course it does. Is that good common sense officiating, to not be that strict and to do everything in your power to get the coach in that position. But folks like you will never understand that concept, because you spend more time trying to complain about what is done then realizing if we called all contact a foul and all marginal violations, the game would not be fun to watch and coaches and fans would be on us more than they are now. But then again, the fact you think that matters to "real" officials just shows what understanding of officiating and the game means to us when the coaches or fans get on us. I do not know about you, but I get paid regardless of who wins or loses. And if a coach does not like the job I do, I passed several to get to that one. Just one place I do not have to go. Makes life a little easier.

Peace

Re: Keep wondering
 

Oooo....a seeker of truth...well, this oughta be fun

Quote:

Stop defending Teddy Valentine. if you guys policed your own, you wouldn't hear the criticism you hear.

Not so, great seeker of truth. We see in the news every day cases where organizations go to great lengths to "police their own" yet still come under constant criticism. Being critical of those in authority is, for better or worse, a consequence of being human. (FWIW somehow those with the least tend to criticize the loudest...don't ask me why that is.)

Quote:

By the way, someone here said the official "passed on" three events of conduct by Xavier on the last three possessions. please tell me someting. Where is the written authority for an official to "pass on" calling a violation of the rules?

Sure. First you tell me what is an "event of conduct"? If we are to seek truth, we must be precise, must we not? And while you're at it, maybe explain why you seem to have such little respect for officials in general yet proudly (if loosely) quote a single anonymous official? Hardly consistent, no?

Quote:

I have asked that question for years, but no one seems able to produce the written authority. There is a very serious reason for asking that question.

Ahhh...you are not only a seeker of truth, you are a man of mystery! Please do reveal the very serious reason for your concern!

Quote:

This one too - Who gives officials authority to ever call anything other than every single violation of the rules they see? Do officials' associations have authority to alter the rules of the game? To advise their members not to enforce violations?

I fear you are becoming redundant...and we do know redundancy is the sign of a weak mind. How disappointing!

Quote:

Someone here surely knows these answers and has a copy of the written document allowing officials to "pass on" calls. Surely it exists. Officials wouldn't intentionally allow the rules to be violated without sanction would they? Just show me.

Yes, redundant. Please do try to be more thoughtful in the future.

Re: Keep wondering
 

Nope. It's a global conspiracy! All of the officials in the WORLD are out to get YOU! We KNOW where you live!

Bwahahahaha......

Lah me. Freaking idiot fanboys. :rolleyes: Every spring they show up here. Just like cockroaches coming out after dark- I don't think that we'll ever get rid of them.

Re: Re: Keep wondering
 

Awww c'mon JR, he's a seeker of truth!

(Or as we say around here "He's a freakin' seekah of da troot!")

Re: No Texas fan at all and no Barnes fan
 

Wasn't Texas favored?

If that is the case, the spread had nothing to do with the game. Texas is in the Big 12, and I would expect most betters would think that a Big 12 team would beat a Atlantic 10 team any day.

Peace

Re: Keep wondering
 

The introduction to the NFHS rules talks about intent and putpose of the rules and how rules must be inteligently applied in each situation. That gives the officials the authority to pass on calling things that might, by a strict black-and-white reading of the rules, be called.

Re: Keep wondering
 

Have you ever read.....no, have you ever SEEN a rule book?

If so, you would have no reason to even ask such a stupid question. You would know the answer.

Find a rule book and see if you find the words, "spirit and intent of the rules" and "advantage/disadvantage."

As far as having sought the answers to these questions, I doubt it. You could have easily found them if you wanted to. You're more interested in bashing officials, just for the sake of being a dumbass.

Perhaps you should look for the thread about Larry Rose and the ACC semifinal game between NC State and Maryland, where Rose correctly called a rule book T on NC State and was then blasted in the media by his BOSS!

Re: Keep wondering - Here is the information you requested.
 

<U><B>The Tower Philosophy</B> </U>
"The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the rules committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the atttention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority are those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Good job, mick!

BTW, I made post in the other thread that you'll probably want to delete. Sorry but I couldn't help myself. It's kinda cute! :D

The last paragraph.............
 

is the reason I say it is a bad thing to be a "rulebook official." It is great to know the rules, but some rules are not as important as others. And if you try to apply them to the letter, you will get yourself in trouble.

Great post Mick!!

Peace

Barnes cost his team with uncontrollable outburst
 

Texas was only down 3 and what if the guy would have missed both free throws? Barnes was out of control most of that second half. Players will react the way their coaches do. You didn't Xavier whining did you? No they played. Barnes should have closed his mouth then he wouldn't have gotten a T. Barnes behaves the way Jim Boeheim used to. Notice Boeheim doesn't do that anymore?

Well, three or four of you have run your mouths
 

but no one has answered my question.

Let me make it simpler for you.

Who has authority to issue an order to officials contradicting the rules of the game?

Have they done so?

Where is the written order?

A referees' association or training camp, so far as I know have no authority to change the rules. Thus, when an official sees contact that's a fould, right?

Under the rules of basketball is contact a foul or not a foul?

These are easy fellas. Please answer these questions directly. Your ad hominem attacks are unseemly among junior high students. Coming from responsible, adult sports officials they indicate that you resort to being a smart mouth in the adsence of the anwer.

I am not now an official but was one for a short time years ago.

I am not a coach but have been.

I am not any longer a player except if you dare call my golf game "playing".

Let us make is simpler for you.
 

The question does not make sense. For one, officials are hired by individuals that have to answer to the NCAA. And those individuals that hire officials have philosophies that are widely accepted by the rules committee (mick explained that). And the NCAA puts out video tapes on every year about acceptable calls and "no-calls" or things to "pass on." And that is the language that is used by the NCAA directly. And if you ever attend and NCAA Rules Meeting, they talk about what direction the game is on and how strict or leniant officials should be on particular rules.

Has who done so?

Written order for what? If you think someone says, "ignore this rule" that is not the case. But the NCAA comes up with philsophies as to how they want the game to be called. At the NCAA Rules Meetings (officials come from several states to attend in about 8 cites) they give an NCAA Official's Handbook, where they discuss in great detail what should be called and why. And this is not directly in the Rulebook. And the CCA Manual has some Officiating guidelines as well as the actual rulebook.

NO. There is a rule in the NCAA Rulebook and the NF Rulebook that discussed extensively about "Incidental Contact." So extensively that the wording is specific that, "all contact is not a foul." Then both rulebooks go on to say, "contact can be severe and not be a foul." But if you had ever picked up a rulebook, you would know that. ;)

If the contact affects the play and puts someone at an advantage or at a disadvantage. But then again, you have been listening to commetators that have never officiated on the level they are commentating about, telling everyone "that is a foul" and "that is not a foul."

I do not think anyone attacked you. I know what I am saying to you is not an attack. I am just stating the obvious that you have never officiated and do not understand officiating. It would be like me telling an Engineer or a Computer Designer the normal practices that they adhere to as being wrong as industry standards. I have not gone to school or ever worked in those type of fields or never did so on a major scale, how am I going to tell those folks what is right or wrong? And the fact you think "contact is a foul," just illustrates that point to many of us. Sorry but it is the truth.

Just because you were an official at one time does not give you credibility on this issue. Because I am an officials that does mostly HS varsity and has done some college the past few years. By no means am I an expert on all things officiating, but I have been around many officials at all levels (NBA as well) and heard them speak on what should be called and not called according to the literal wording in the rules. And if you every heard Marcy Weston and Hank Nichols speak in person, you will realize that they do not want a literal interpretation on many rules. One of the reasons they put out bulletins during the year to have officials focus on how they want the game to be called. And at the college level, the coaches are the ones that really make the rules. But in front of both books they make it clear that the "spirit and intent" is what should be called, not the "literal wording" to be called. Bob has already made that clear, but you are still asking. Did you read the posts or did you just claim someone did not answer your question?


Just more reason you have no credibility on this issue yourself. And you keep thinking a foul is based only on the fact that contact occurs.

Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Mar 28th, 2004 at 03:05 PM]

YOu belittle me and make your jokes
 

but you don't answer the question.

Show where in the rule book it says that certian kinds of contact in games is not a foul.

Here's what is happening. Humans make mistakes. All of us do, referees included. Nothing happens to referees who make mistakes. Nothing is ever said publicly to enable the folks who pay the money to make the games occur and result in employment for officials, can ever know if refs were discipline or even corrected for their mistakes. They see you guys noting and sanctioning the players and coaches mistakes. they even see you correct time keepers and scoreboard operators mistakes.

But, no one ever even know IF anyone noticed your mistakes.

I guarantee that in a game between two fairly closely matched teams, I could, quite surepticiously determine the outcome 100% of the time if I was an offical who wanted to do that. If I became suspect, I'd just say, "Hey, I might have missed a couple there."

I further guarantee you that human nature makes SOME of us weak enough to try to do that sometimes. Referees, being human, too, are among 'some of us'.

They don't do the background checks on the NCAA refs for no reason, folks.

They do it because they suspected the possibility of gamblers buying outcomes from referees.

Now, if the game is to be sustained, we have to remove ALL DOUBT that this knind of thing could happen.

How? Call the rule book exactly as written - no exceptions, not points of emphasis, not advice from referees associations except to teach the black letter rules rules from the book and every official call every violation every time.

How does that help? It removes all discretion from referees. It makes their assessment much easier.

I believe the rule book indicates that contact is a foul. Call all contact a foul. The players will figure it out pretty quickly. The game will eturn to one of speed, skill and finesse instead of the wrestling match it has become.

And for you folks the best thing will occur.

No one will ever saw again in a close game - "on three straight possessions there was contact on (name a team) that the covering official saw but 'passed on'."

My point is this. No one gave that official the authority to "pass on it". He did that in contravention of the rules and it gave an advantage to one team over the other. IF he was trying to effect an outcome (and I have no reason to think he was), nothing more than that might have done it. That's why it has to be eliminated.

I admit I am having some fun.....
 

but I am not belitting you.

Check another recent post you made. I just answered that question in detail. If you unsure which one, I referenced Rule 4 and the <b>Incidental Contact</b> wording.

Again, you show your ignorance. Officials get fired every year. The reason you do not hear about it, is because you either are not paying attention, or the media is not going to report to you about who got fired out of 45 official on a conference staff. Just like you do not hear about he hirings that happen every year. Usually you hear about those things if the conference desides to make that information public or you know officials that work in that confernence and the decide to tell someone.

At the D1 level, there is an evaluator at every game, at least in the major conferences. They go over the tape of the game, they sit there for an hour or more after each game to review those tapes with the evaluators and the type of mistakes are not just about a call. They are about calls that they did make, that should have been passed on. They are about their mechanics and positioning. They are about what they allow the coaches and players do to when it comes to complaining and giving out Ts. And if they are downgraded enough, a particular confernence just might fire that official. There is a reason D1 assignors hold camps every year and go watch officials all over the country.

Not really. We do not make shots. We do not take shots. We do not decide to throw the ball away. We do not make FTs. We do not tell the coach to decide to play a zone or a full court press. Not sure we have as much control as you think. And in the OK St/St. Joseph game, did the officials tell the St.J coach not to call a timeout or for his star player to take a shot? Foul counts do not affect the other aspect of the game that coaches and officials have little responsibility over and that is execution.

Why? If I get paid regardless of how you think I called the game, why would a favor one team over another? Especially if I make more than $30,000 off <b>one</b> (just an example) conference and more if I work into the NCAA Tournament, I am going to jeapordize all of that to favor some team that will not make the NIT?

They do background checks on more than officials. Officials see the same NCAA Betting tape that the players and coaches and other individuals have to see. Remember the incident at Washington? You had a football coach that got fired for betting on the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a sport he has no direct affiliation.

They suspect the possibility with everyone. Remember Arizona State a few years ago?

Well considering that there have been more scandal with players and coaches, I think official's position is secure. But I guess you do not know who Connie Hawkins is?

Just another example of your ignorance of the rules and officiating. Please keep the laughs coming.

Well considering that I officiate 3 sports and there is always descrition. But then again, when we do call fouls to the letter, folks like yourself say things like "let them play," and "you have a fast whistle." So we are damn if we do, damned if we don't. And when we call fouls against a particular team, they claim that "contact" was not a foul. So not sure where you are getting your information from.

You might believe, but you would be wrong. Better yet, show us where in the rulebook it says that? I will buy a new one when you show that passage in the rulebook. :D

OK, whatever you say.

Again, just another example of your overall ignorance of the game of basketball and officiating in general.

Peace

Re: YOu belittle me and make your jokes
 

OK, let's play.

Show me where it says in the rule book that ANY kind of contact is a foul.

I'll wait until you get yourself a rule book.

I know that this has already been handled, but I just have to add my 2. You say you want officials to follow the "black and white" rulebook completely. The problem is that the rulebook, in effect, says use your best judgement about what constitutes a foul (ie the rulebook isn't "black and white") It gives examples of situations that should or should not result in a call, but it couldn't possibly describe a foul in "black and white". That is why we must rely on intelligent humans who have experience and common sense who can use their own judgement to call fouls. If the officials judgement is consistemtly found to be suspect then they will be replaced by whoever hires them.

Re: Well, three or four of you have run your mouths
 

Get a rulebook. Read it. Then we'll talk.

(Hint - the rules specifically state that not all contact is a foul!)



Hello, kettle? You there? This is the pot . . . .




Maybe the rules have changed. What levels did you work? For how long? When?

Yeah - because that makes you a rule expert!

Why?
 

Why do you guys waste your time and credibility responding to nonsense like this?

Can we close this? The questions have been answered several times and the answers ignored. If this guy asked if the sky was blue and someone answered yes, he'd have a 750-word post questioning the answer. To complete the adage, this guy has opened his mouth and removed all doubt.