Billy Packer vs. Dick Vitale - Page 3

tomegun · #31 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 08, 2006, 05:16pm

I don't mind Dickie V and/or Packer announcing nonsense. They are dynamic (to some) and that sells. We are in a society where you don't necessarily have to know what you are talking about, you just have to get a large group to like your presentation. How many of us know everything about everything? Don't answer that! The fact that we don't know doesn't always keep us (everyone) from talking about things.

Now, what I don't like is Dickie V's blatant love for Duke. That is flat out wrong. I know it is my opinion that he feels this way, but I can't see how someone could say otherwise. The part about it I love is, although they get either the most or second most talent in (you know who the other school is), they don't win as much as they should.

BktBallRef · #32 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 08, 2006, 06:40pm

NFHS Officials Manual p. 70
341.
b. Slowly STATE the color of the shirt and the playing number of the player fouled.
c. The VISUAL signal indicating the nature of the foul is then given.

There's no need to verbalize the type of foul. The scorer couldn't care less what type of foul it is.

BktBallRef · #33 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 08, 2006, 07:04pm

If you ever heard Vitale speak, you would change your mind about him. He's a tremendous motivational speaker. I've never heard anyone else with so much energy and enthusiasm for life. He talked for better than an hour but it seemed like 15 minutes. If you ever have the opportunity to hear him, I would urge you to go.

As for Packer...

tomegun · #34 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 08, 2006, 10:01pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
NFHS Officials Manual p. 70
341.
b. Slowly STATE the color of the shirt and the playing number of the player fouled.
c. The VISUAL signal indicating the nature of the foul is then given.

There's no need to verbalize the type of foul. The scorer couldn't care less what type of foul it is.

I totally understand your point. However, I would like to ask one question: is everything you do on the court done according to the printed rule/manual? I say that to say this:

1. Once I understood where Chuck and Rut were coming from I agreed; I have no problem with it.
2. We are talking about "push", "hand-check", "hold", etc. and you quoted a page in the manual.

While we use the rule book and manual as a guide, we do not - should not - follow it to the letter. Just my opinion and this is meant with respect and not intended to start anything.

BktBallRef · #35 (**permalink**) Wed Mar 08, 2006, 10:09pm

I wrote the post after reading your response in the middle of the second page, before knowing that you were confused.

It makes no difference to me whether you verbalize or not.

I was simply pointing out that the NFHS recommends no verbalization.

The purpose of that recommendation is to keep from giving coaches something to argue about. For example, B1 trips A1. Do you have a signal and verbalization for tripping? Sure you do. "Blue, 42, block." "How did he block him!?!"

I've never verbalized. I've had no problems with it.

You verbalize. You have no problems. Great.

TussAgee11 · #36 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 12:33am

For me, the only thing a may want to hear is "Player Control" as opposed to a Push (although the rule changed this year regarding players with/without the ball). This way I can tell you if we are shooting or not, and if so how many.

You don't even need to tell me what number, the hands are good enough, along with the movement of the lips (Just so I can read them in addition to your hands). Hearing it does nothing for me.

Just this scorer's opinion. I'm the guy who also never does the play by play of what's needed to be recorded in the book, and when people do that, it really irks me (how many times I've said to myself - I KNOW WHO JUST SCORED THAT BASKET WHY DOES THE OTHER SCORER FEEL THE NEED TO GIVE ME AN UPDATE) Obviously conversing is good when there is/could be some confusion on tap ins or in a crowd of people.

just another ref · #37 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 12:51am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I was simply pointing out that the NFHS recommends no verbalization.

The purpose of that recommendation is to keep from giving coaches something to argue about.

NFHS doesn't know the coaches I know. How many times after giving a signal for a foul, without a word, have we been asked: "What?? What did he do??"

Adam · #38 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 01:38am

Quote:

Originally posted by just another ref

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I was simply pointing out that the NFHS recommends no verbalization.

The purpose of that recommendation is to keep from giving coaches something to argue about.

NFHS doesn't know the coaches I know. How many times after giving a signal for a foul, without a word, have we been asked: "What?? What did he do??"

Never. They know.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #39 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 06:14am

Can't do without Dickie V!!

MTD, Sr.

ChuckElias · #40 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 09:09am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
NFHS Officials Manual p. 70
341.
b. Slowly STATE the color of the shirt and the playing number of the player fouled.
c. The VISUAL signal indicating the nature of the foul is then given.

There's no need to verbalize the type of foul. The scorer couldn't care less what type of foul it is.

Thanks, Tony. I wasn't able to get back last night to give the manual reference. That's why I said we are told not to verbalize.

stripes · #41 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 10:48am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
Can you name any analyst that knows the rules? If that was the criteria then there would be no TV commentators.

Peace

Irv Brown (ESPN Analyst) worked the FF, IIRC. I do know that he was one of the big time D1 guys in the 60's and 70's.

26 Year Gap · #42 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 10:40pm

I would have to look at the actuarial tables before making my decision on Packer or Vitale. If one was gone, how long would we likely have to put up with the other one?

Forksref · #43 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 10:47pm

Packer is boring. Neither one knows rules but once in a while Dickie V is entertaining.

Diaper Dandies Dump Dook at Kremlin Indoor Stadium!

MajorCord · #44 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 11:08pm

Packer hates the Tarheels and never has anything good to say about them. Vitale loves the "Dookies" so much, you would think he was Coach K's uncle. But, at least he thinks Roy Williams should be the Coach of the Year. So, I say, get rid of Packer and put Vitale on "Dook's" bench.

bebanovich · #45 (**permalink**) Thu Mar 09, 2006, 11:37pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
If you ever heard Vitale speak, you would change your mind about him. He's a tremendous motivational speaker. I've never heard anyone else with so much energy and enthusiasm for life.

I think one of the reasons he has enthusiasm for life is that he doesn't have to watch telecasts of games where he is the analyst.

I do want analysts who know the rules but I don't want them to stick ONLY to rulebook language - I want them to be more descriptive of the action than just "push."

What I really want is for announcers to stop saying "literally" when they really mean the exact opposite - "figuratively." No, he did not literally leap out of the gym but that would have been more entertaining despite the delay required for paramedics and roof repairs.