LSU/Stanford charge (Women's)

[M&M Guy]

Nate - please allow me to throw my .02 in. Words and phrases sometimes have different meanings depending on who is saying them, and who is hearing them. "Let the players determine the outcome" is one of those phrases. I think that, as a whole, all good officials subscribe to this statement. Now, there are indeed some officials that want and like the "spotlight" and enjoy making a call, or even making up a call, just to have the spolight on them at the end of a game, and that's a shame. But there are also those officials that want to avoid that spotlight at all costs, even to the point of not making necessary calls, just so people won't notice them as much at the end of close games. And these officials always use "I'm letting the players determine the outcome" as their excuse for not making those calls. I have met and seen enough officials in my time to know that it's usually these types of officials that use that phrase; most of the others consider this to be so obvious that it's not worth saying. Kind of like saying the sun's gonna rise in the east tomorrow. How many times have you said that recently?

Also, don't confuse testicular fortitude with wanting the spotlight; those are two different things. Making the right call at the end of a game, knowing that it may put that unwanted spotlight on you, takes guts. Too many lesser officials shy away from making the correct call because they're afraid of the spotlight. And that's NOT letting the players decide the game, that's YOU deciding the game by making or not making a call just to avoid controversy. If it's a foul or a violation at the 7:00-minute mark in the first half, it's the exact same call with 3 seconds left in a tie game, even though you know the home crowd is going to let loose with a whole bunch of expletives.

So, just in my experience, saying "let the players decide the game" is "code" for "I don't have enough guts to make an unpopular, but correct, call." Maybe that's not what you're saying, but that is what some officials hear in that statement. Again, jmo.

[jbduke]

First, M&M, the calm that your latest post brought to this discussion was the right prescription for this thread's feva. Snaps for that.

I just skimmed this thread, but I haven't seen anything mentioned about something my roommate pointed out, but that I didn't see on the play. He said that he thought he saw the slot's fist go up on the play. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be shocking to me. The slot was Yarbrough, probably the most respected official in the women's game, and it's a play that I could see a veteran official making in that situation, given that the L passed on the play. Anybody notice this already, or have access to a replay to check?

[bigwhistle]

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

There is a big difference between an official who likes to see his name in lights and an official affraid to make a call. The L in game we were talking about was 2 feet from the contact and chose to pass, I pressume b/c of the location of the ball at the time of contact, the situation of the game, and the overexcentuation of the charge by Augustus. The other official however saw it differently and (it was a woman, so she didnt have balls, for all you BALLS fans) made the call. Was it right or wrong?? In her eyes, it had to be made. In the L's eyes it was a no call, and I agree. Two NCAA tourny officials not agreeing on a call, imagine that.

Why did the T make the call and not the L? That seems to be the point of contention. Just maybe the reason is because they used PROPER mechanics!!!! The ball was passed into the L's primary and the L went with the ball. The T stayed with the passer who then crashed. The way you people are talking is that both officials should have been watching the crash. Hmmmm....I guess where the ball goes should be ignored..nothing ever happens there.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

OK, how about this then, seeing as I deliberately tried to stay away from name-calling in my first post?

You're a clueless jerk that doesn't know one damn thing about officiating. You also got no balls if you're afraid to blow your whistle at the end of a game.

That's my take on you.

U da Man, JR!!! I knew I could count on you to put this pipsqueak in his place.

He still doesn't get it though. He thinks that we are on his case because he doesn't think that was a PC foul. If that is the way he feels when seeing the play, that's just fine with me. The problem is his REASON for believing that. His reason is total garbage and if he really uses that kind of justification for his officiating decisions then he has no business being a basketball official.

And Nate, whether JR saw the play or not, he can still comment on the reasoning that you posted. It is pretty clear what he thinks of that.

Lastly, you chastise JR for not seeing the play, but posting in this thread,

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

Please dont comment on things you havent seen.

but you who saw the play and know everything about it can't even get the two teams who were involved correct. You have repeatedly posted Rutgers.

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

Decisions just like the one made in the LSU vs. Rutgers game...

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

The Rutgers shooter continued with the shot and knocked it down. Please dont comment on things you havent seen.

Funny, I don't recall seeing Rutgers play LSU in the tourney this year, and neither do you! Get it right! STANFORD was LSU's opponent in the game under discussion. Rutgers lost to Tennessee in Cleveland. Or you could follow your own advice and not comment on things you haven't seen.

PS You need some grammar lessons. The spell check can't cover for you there.

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

Your the one dictating the game with YOUR whistle. If there is a controversial call, YOUR the guy to make it. YOUR the guy that both coaches dislike and the fans are always yelling at.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bigwhistle

Why did the T make the call and not the L? That seems to be the point of contention. Just maybe the reason is because they used PROPER mechanics!!!! The ball was passed into the L's primary and the L went with the ball. The T stayed with the passer who then crashed. The way you people are talking is that both officials should have been watching the crash. Hmmmm....I guess where the ball goes should be ignored..nothing ever happens there.

We discussed this point before in the thread.

As you clearly know, there is a difference in the mechanics between NCAAM and NCAAW. This is the type of play in which I believe that the NCAAM mechanic does better. The Lead probably has the best idea of the positioning of the secondary defender coming over in an attempt to draw the charge. The Trail had the primary defender and the ball handler. Pretty tough to also pick up the other defender at full speed. However, it is not very difficult for the Trail to switch over to the shooter in the corner and cover that play.

The Lead, in NCAAW, is torn between trying to watch two things in that official's primary on a play like this. The NCAAM just let the Trail take the shooter in the corner while the Lead focuses on the play near the block.

[Nate1224hoops]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

U da Man, JR!!! I knew I could count on you to put this pipsqueak in his place.

He still doesn't get it though. He thinks that we are on his case because he doesn't think that was a PC foul. If that is the way he feels when seeing the play, that's just fine with me. The problem is his REASON for believing that. His reason is total garbage and if he really uses that kind of justification for his officiating decisions then he has no business being a basketball official.

And Nate, whether JR saw the play or not, he can still comment on the reasoning that you posted. It is pretty clear what he thinks of that.

Lastly, you chastise JR for not seeing the play, but posting in this thread,


but you who saw the play and know everything about it can't even get the two teams who were involved correct. You have repeatedly posted Rutgers.






Funny, I don't recall seeing Rutgers play LSU in the tourney this year, and neither do you! Get it right! STANFORD was LSU's opponent in the game under discussion. Rutgers lost to Tennessee in Cleveland. Or you could follow your own advice and not comment on things you haven't seen.

PS You need some grammar lessons. The spell check can't cover for you there.

Glad to see that your still being an @ss, knew we could count on you for that. It's funny that two NCAA final four officials saw the play differently but b/c I think it was a bad call and you don't you want to bash. It's fine, it shows how childish you are. I felt that it was a no call, you feel differently. Sorry for the Rutgers bit, it was Stanford..oops. As for your grammar lesson that you would like to give me...I'll be sure to include ' in all my words from now on:: we're, they're, you're ...just for you. The fact that I'M an English teacher must mean I need a grammar lesson. You just keep coming with insults. IT'S obvious that you are a closed minded, NUMBNUT, but IT'S okay. I'M sure you really really CAN'T help that now can you. As far as you telling me that I that I DON'T need to be an official, well you where you can shove that. I'M sure YOU think YOU'RE much better. As too, I'M sure you think YOU'RE better than the L who passed on the call.

Maybe I didnt exactly chose the best wording by saying: "allow players to decide games," but you obviously put your own twist on to fit your argument. What was meant by that (which was all involving the call made in the STANFORD/Lsu game) is that the ball was gone from Wiggins hand, Augustus was leaning (backward away from the contact), and at that point I feel that the call could/should have been passed on. LSU was the favorite. Augustus is all world and everyone wants to see the LSU/Duke/UNC final four and well they will now.

[Nate1224hoops]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Nate - please allow me to throw my .02 in. Words and phrases sometimes have different meanings depending on who is saying them, and who is hearing them. "Let the players determine the outcome" is one of those phrases. I think that, as a whole, all good officials subscribe to this statement. Now, there are indeed some officials that want and like the "spotlight" and enjoy making a call, or even making up a call, just to have the spolight on them at the end of a game, and that's a shame. But there are also those officials that want to avoid that spotlight at all costs, even to the point of not making necessary calls, just so people won't notice them as much at the end of close games. And these officials always use "I'm letting the players determine the outcome" as their excuse for not making those calls. I have met and seen enough officials in my time to know that it's usually these types of officials that use that phrase; most of the others consider this to be so obvious that it's not worth saying. Kind of like saying the sun's gonna rise in the east tomorrow. How many times have you said that recently?

Also, don't confuse testicular fortitude with wanting the spotlight; those are two different things. Making the right call at the end of a game, knowing that it may put that unwanted spotlight on you, takes guts. Too many lesser officials shy away from making the correct call because they're afraid of the spotlight. And that's NOT letting the players decide the game, that's YOU deciding the game by making or not making a call just to avoid controversy. If it's a foul or a violation at the 7:00-minute mark in the first half, it's the exact same call with 3 seconds left in a tie game, even though you know the home crowd is going to let loose with a whole bunch of expletives.

So, just in my experience, saying "let the players decide the game" is "code" for "I don't have enough guts to make an unpopular, but correct, call." Maybe that's not what you're saying, but that is what some officials hear in that statement. Again, jmo.

I agree with most of what you said. My choice of words: Let players decide games, was probably not the best. It was great for a couple of IDIOTS to start bashing and telling me how incompetent an official I am. Everyone understandst the unwritten rule at the end of the game (except JR and Nevad). As far as not have balls, or testicular fortitude, I'm sure some officials don't want to make a call. And it could be for that very reason. All I am saying is that I don't think at that level the L didn't make the call b/c he lacks balls. I think he saw something else. It was his call, he knew it was his call. The T made the call and I am led to believe that the L didn't make the call b/c he chose to pass and "let it be decided by something different." Maybe that would have been a better choice of words.

[tomegun]

Nate, I hope the bit about being an English teacher was a joke because you are still butchering the language. Just to keep a running score -

"choose" and "chose" should be used differently.
"...well you where you can shove that." - doesn't really make sense. I guess you are missing the "know."

Also, I'm of the opinion that the official could very well lack the testicular fortitude to make the call. Read below or read it here - it is what it is. If there is a call to be made, the call should be made. There was a lot of contact and a call probably should have been made either way. It doesn't seem like the media is criticizing this call very much, and we all know they now kill officials in the press, so why are some people on this board so critical of the call? There was contact and a whistle.

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

[Nate1224hoops]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Nate, I hope the bit about being an English teacher was a joke because you are still butchering the language. Just to keep a running score -

"choose" and "chose" should be used differently.
"...well you where you can shove that." - doesn't really make sense. I guess you are missing the "know."

Also, I'm of the opinion that the official could very well lack the testicular fortitude to make the call. Read below or read it here - it is what it is. If there is a call to be made, the call should be made. There was a lot of contact and a call probably should have been made .either way It doesn't seem like the media is criticizing this call very much, and we all know they now kill officials in the press, so why are some people on this board so critical of the call? There was contact and a whistle.

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

LOL. Yes, I am an English teacher at private college in Virginia. However, I didn't realize that misspelled words and the lack of proofreading was a crime, especially on an officials message forum. If you would like to keep a running score we can do that. If you would like to get into an English verbiage contest that will be fine too.

With each and every reply someone creates something new. No one said anything about the media criticizing. I simply stated about 25 posts ago that IMO (I can do this right, or should I spell it out) I think that it would have been a better no call and I stated the reasons I felt this way.

For you to hop in on the grammatical bandwagon is childdish. If it is imperitive that I use apostrophe's in the correct place and proof every word typed then maybe you can just give me your email address and I'll send it to you before I post, since you seem to have a doctorate in grammar.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

I think this is the key to this thread. IMO if this happens at the 10 minute mark in the 1st half and you "let the players decide it" then why call a foul on anything in the entire game. This play probably had more contact and displacement then any other play in the entire game.

[tomegun]

Nate, I'm sorry for busting your chops. I didn't think I JUST hopped in, but you can be the judge of that.

Can you tell us what your experience is and what level you work? Also, can you answer the question I asked before?

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We discussed this point before in the thread.

As you clearly know, there is a difference in the mechanics between NCAAM and NCAAW. This is the type of play in which I believe that the NCAAM mechanic does better. The Lead probably has the best idea of the positioning of the secondary defender coming over in an attempt to draw the charge. The Trail had the primary defender and the ball handler. Pretty tough to also pick up the other defender at full speed. However, it is not very difficult for the Trail to switch over to the shooter in the corner and cover that play.

The Lead, in NCAAW, is torn between trying to watch two things in that official's primary on a play like this. The NCAAM just let the Trail take the shooter in the corner while the Lead focuses on the play near the block.

I think maybe you are a little confused about the NCAAW mechanics...the T did have the drive since it originated in his/her primary. The L does have the secondary defender in those situations...however, we try to have a "patient" whistle so that the T has first crack at the call. I still believe that is what happened on this play in discussion...I don't believe the L was "passing" on anything, just giving the T first crack, and then would have stepped in...if the T isn't sure, they don't call anything and the L steps in and takes it.There is nothing in the book that says the L can't make the call on the secondary defender.

[Nate1224hoops]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Nate, I'm sorry for busting your chops. I didn't think I JUST hopped in, but you can be the judge of that.

Can you tell us what your experience is and what level you work? Also, can you answer the question I asked before?

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

You didn't just hop in the conversation. You did just hop in with the grammatical thing, which I can fix.

I have officiated V HS boys/girls for 9 years and Division 3 NCAA for 3 years.

To answer your question, yes I probably call a foul. If the exact same thing I saw happened in minute 1 of the game I would call a foul--a blocking foul on Augustus. As I said before, after watching it over and over, my take is that she wasn't in the greatest position to take the charge and it appears to me that she was falling before contact was ever made. In that sitution with 5 seconds on the clock, I am not bailing the offensive player out with a blocking call. Much like I probably would have passed on the strong hand-check that Wiggins was receiving on her way to the charge. Certain calls have to be made no matter when they occur, early or late (shooter being contacted, push in the back on rebounded....). But some things have to be much more severe in late game situations. As I said before, the entire dynamics of the play change if Wiggins is attempting to go to the basket. She had already passed the ball to the wing before contact was made. Thats my take on the play. Am I upset with the call. No. It was a very tough call to make. I've seen the replay 700 times, unfortunately the official saw it once. That however, doesn't make the call correct in everyone's eyes.

[Nate1224hoops]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I think maybe you are a little confused about the NCAAW mechanics...the T did have the drive since it originated in his/her primary. The L does have the secondary defender in those situations...however, we try to have a "patient" whistle so that the T has first crack at the call. I still believe that is what happened on this play in discussion...I don't believe the L was "passing" on anything, just giving the T first crack, and then would have stepped in...if the T isn't sure, they don't call anything and the L steps in and takes it.There is nothing in the book that says the L can't make the call on the secondary defender.

I disagree. Why would the T have first crack at the call. The ball has just entered and left the T primary. The T should have been concerned with contact made throughout his/her primary. So how could the T have seen all this plus noticed to see if Augustus was in proper position. I'm not saying that the T can't make this call, but the L should have first crack at it b/c he/she isn't following the ball as closely through the T primary and can better see if Augustus was there or not. I think the L passed on the call.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by Nate1224hoops

LOL. Yes, I am an English teacher at private college in Virginia. However, I didn't realize that misspelled words and the lack of proofreading was a crime, especially on an officials message forum. If you would like to keep a running score we can do that. If you would like to get into an English verbiage contest that will be fine too.

With each and every reply someone creates something new. No one said anything about the media criticizing. I simply stated about 25 posts ago that IMO (I can do this right, or should I spell it out) I think that it would have been a better no call and I stated the reasons I felt this way.

For you to hop in on the grammatical bandwagon is childdish. If it is imperitive that I use apostrophe's in the correct place and proof every word typed then maybe you can just give me your email address and I'll send it to you before I post, since you seem to have a doctorate in grammar.

The fact that you can't spell properly coupled with the fact that you are a college english professor doesn't help getting your point across.

If I told someone that I am a math teacher but I can't figure out 20% for a tip then I am showing my a$$.

You had the ability to double check your last post and you still misspelled a number of words. The words "childdish", "imperitive" and this last one is probably the best "apostrophe's". This should NOT have an apostrophe.

I hope for your sake that the English department at your college does not see this post.