CBS showed a montage of 'bad call' while talking to the Washington coach, but, I thought it was a very good called game tonight. Seemed fair for both teams.

actually, no, I am hoping he is coming...I am trying to explain all the calls that folks were saying were bad tonight, telling them they were the right calls

The Garcia takedown of Nate, etc...all of those were legal plays, and I hope he comes to the Austin region on Sunday...he did a great job tonight.

Some of those UK fans don't understand. I was telling them that the montage that CBS showed was bogus and that the calls tonight were fair. The crew did a great job tonight. I hope UK gets them tomorrow night for our Utah game.

Thanks guys for helping see things differently.

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!! You come in here a few days ago, questioning the man's integrity as an official, and surprise, surprise, when he isn't officiating a UK game it turns out to be a fair contest. So are you trying to prove that he screws UK, or are you willing to admit that perhaps, just perhaps, your affinity for the white and blue colors your judgement as to Hess's credibility?

It really is March Madness for a reason.

i realized tonight that Hess is just like any official...he makes calls that are bad, but, you have to play through them

quite frankly i was shocked at the call that was made on the Garcia takedown of Nate, but, it doesn't do any good to complain...even though it was his 3rd.

It's best to say that they do a great job and just move on...it doesn't do any good to complain.

They did a great job tonight! And this is the truth.

I don't think anybody has to worry about Carl Hess showing up to any NCAA tournament game this weekend. Unless the NCAA has changed their policy, an official can be assigned to a regional semifinal or regional final, but not both.

Fanboy
 

How would you know?

and for the record...WFAN out of New York is editing a tape of the UL/Washington 'debacle' as they called it, and sending it to the NCAA complete woth voiceovers describing the rules and how they were broken on numerous plays...

I still think it was a great game by the crew though...they did a great job.

Now that proves it. Guys who think the Boston Red Sox could not possibly beat the New York Yankees last year are very credible on officiating in the NCAA Tournament. Riiigggghhhttt!!!!!

Peace

Okay, let's start a petition. We get 10,000 signatures from basketball officials of all levels asking CBS, ESPN, WFAN and other sports media outlets to send their broadcasters to officiate some games. We get to tape them, with voiceovers, and critique their performance. We then edit all the footage into an hour-long "highlights" video that they must agree to broadcast. We'll give them something that they might be able to handle, like an 8th grade girls tournament, and see how they do. We can assign Billy Packer, Bill Walton and Dickie V to work the final game. That is, if they haven't cancelled the tournament before they get that far. :rolleyes:

I've got to hand it to you. It takes some stones to come back after the last exchange and admit that your judgement may have been wrong. That's unheard of behavior from a fan on this site. I'm taking you off my troll list :)

Frankly, BITS, I'm not convinced he's not talking out of his a$$. I sense some strong sarcasm in his posts. But, I might just be skeptical.

That is the way I understand the assigning process as well.

Peace

Okay, I gotta say, as a transplanted New Yorker who is a big fan of WFAN, if they ARE doing as he says they are, I am pretty disappointed. What, do they think that the NCAA missed the game? That there weren't numerous pairs of eyes much more trained than those of WFAN watching the game specifically for the officiating? I hope he is wrong. To think that broadcast outlets should start holding themselves up as the bastions of officiating evaluation makes me wanna puke. Heck, maybe they could even get Doug Gottleib to throw in his two cents, or half cent, as the case may be.

One more thing about Tubby's "turnaround" here. Notice the team that won the game is from Kentucky, and is coached by the former UK coach.

Only time will tell, I guess. But I'm willing to cut him some slack for the present.

opinions on a call from last night

in the Bucknell/KU game the ref called an intentional foul on a Bucknell player in a crucial moment that gave KU 2 free's and the ball, it was a good call, but, is often not called for whatever reasons

in the Okie St./Arizona game last night, with 2.8 seconds left the same type play took place when an Arizona player reached from behind and gave their last non-free-shooting foul to stop the clock, it wasn't called intentional, Bilas pointed out, as I was thinking, 'that could have been called intentional'

in both cases the games were close and were on the line, why is it in one an intentional and not an intentional in the other?

interested in honest opinions. thank you.

Because there is judgement involved. Referees are required to make many split-second decisions in every game, many of which are going to be debateable by fans (don't forget htat fans is short for fanatics). You know how you fans tell if a call was correct? If it favored <b> their </b> team.

Individuals without reffing experience on a high level just have no clue about officiating. Here you are, a complete novice and you're analyzing NCAA officiating. I can't decide if it's as funny as it is pathetic.

Z

I will try to explain it to you. The wording "intentional foul" has little or nothing to do with a foul being called intentional. A foul can be totally unintentional and be called intentional by rule. Most commentators do not know the rule as most of the public does not know the rule. They think by the name of the foul every foul that is intentional should be called an intentional foul.

That might not help you in your understanding, but that is just the way they explain the rule in the rulebooks.

Peace

the way this lowly fan understood the 'intentional foul' rule is that if you are going for the ball, it is not intentional, if you have no chance of getting the ball and foul for the sake of fouling than this is intentional

i understand that in any given game there are alot of 'clock stopping' fouls where this could technically be called an intentional, but, is not because the ref's understand the intent

so, again, i understand it is a judgement, but, both cases looked very much the same yet they were called differently, to a fan that watches around 200 games a year, this is confusing

In the Bucknell game, the defender was trying to foul to prevent the KU player from getting a breakaway layup. he reached out and grabbed the jersey from behind.

In the Arizona play, the defender fouled the dribbler on the dribbling arm. The fact that it was from behind does not make it an intentional foul. He was not trying to foul to take away an opponent's advantageou position. He ws playing the ball. He simply made a strategic foul.

BTW, the rest of these guys may buy you're "change of heart" but I know bull$hit when I smell it. Hopefully, they're just giving you the benfit of the doubt. I know better.

Go Utes!

Two plays that look the same never are. Look at your examples, one occurs in the middle of a game (so to speak), and one occurs at the very end of a game. This will have an effect on both the players and the officials. If I remember correctly, the Bucknell/KU foul occured as a player was going towards the basket, maybe even in the paint? That also is different from the Arizona fouls, which occured at midcourt. "Playing the ball" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the call, as JRut said. I saw both calls, and to me, they both looked like good calls. Actaully, I thought that the official in the Arizona game passed on some contact before he called the foul, which may be why he called it the way he did. He saw the contact, watched the play develop and because of the advantage, TWEET! Just like they tell us to. All I can say is don't get the impression that every play is is the same, even when it may look that way at first glance.

the KU/Bucknell call was at the end of the game, under a minute left...and it was between midcourt and the three point arc

while it is true the Bucknell was more in a 'reach' mode
the Arizona player looked like he was reaching too

in both cases the ref knew the player was trying to stop the guy with the ball, so, it is interesting to see how the moment is interpreted

thanks for the input

Actually, Zebe, I thought it was a fairly well worded question. It's relatively neutral, with not a lot of strong feeling one way or the other.

I'm with BITS on this one. Cut the guy a little slack. After Kentucky plays, with Hess working, THEN we'll know what the core is made of!

Tubby, if you want to improve your credibility and earn some respect in this forum, get your hands on the rule books (rule book, case book, illustrated)and read them thoroughly. Then come back here and ask some pertinent questions and LISTEN to the answers. You'll learn there is no such thing as a "reach in foul" (perfectly legal to reach if there is no contact). This phrase was invented by broadcasters such as Billy Packer who don't really know the rules of the game but want to be controversial and hence earn a living.

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

i understand that contact has to be made on the reach in

just using laymen terms

In the words of Pat Conroy (a former teacher and well-known author)when confounded by his students: "Sweet Jesus!"

I'm with BktBallRef. Based on previous posts, I think the guy is a troll.

On another note, I kinda like "Zebe" though. Might start using that.

Z (Zebe)