Tommy Amaker goes nuts for the first time ever

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yeah, unfortunately they missed the GT.
However, I would not have had anything on the elbows either. I don't believe that he even hit him with the elbow. The contact looked like it was made with the tricep or back of the upper arm. The MI player lost his cool. If he is going to get right up in someone's mug, what does he expect at this level? Should the offensive player just give him the ball?
He's going to make an effort to get him away. Most of these plays are about the guys showing some respect for each other. Lack of that is what starts the problems.

When the ball is cleared by the rebounder, 99% of the time the other 9 players run down the floor. Like you said, this is what happens when a defender decides to get in the rebounder's face.

(If it's girls basketball, change the 99% to 9%.)

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I saw the intentional happen live and this is why swinging the elbows has to be called a violation. None of this would have happened if this was called on the first swing. It doesn't matter if the defense is "crowding" the player unless he is in the player's vertical space.

This goaltending is definitely a case of lead saving Trail & Center's butts if he happened to see it. I've had people tell me to never call goaltending/BI in lead but in extreme cases that is not the case. As your assigner will say "Get it right"

If the lead is doing his job, he wouldn't see the goaltend. He's watching rebounding action and that one is too close to call on "peripheral vision."

The C needed to get that GT or get skewered, which he did.

Why did the C signal a 3-point attempt? That was clearly in the T's area.

Z

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yeah, unfortunately they missed the GT.
However, I would not have had anything on the elbows either. I don't believe that he even hit him with the elbow. The contact looked like it was made with the tricep or back of the upper arm. The MI player lost his cool. If he is going to get right up in someone's mug, what does he expect at this level? Should the offensive player just give him the ball?
He's going to make an effort to get him away. Most of these plays are about the guys showing some respect for each other. Lack of that is what starts the problems.

Nevada, this is a good point. What is the player supposed to do when someone is in his face? I think they should have a right to move/swing within reason and if contact occurs the defender should be responsible to prohibiting the offensive player's movement.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Why did the C signal a 3-point attempt? That was clearly in the T's area.

Z

Because he was just trying to get it right! Ha Ha Ha!

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Because he was just trying to get it right! Ha Ha Ha!

LOL.

Z

[jkjenning]

How do you possibly take exception to the statement from All_Heart about "getting it right"? I've heard that from any number of sources and certainly from the assigners.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

How do you possibly take exception to the statement from All_Heart about "getting it right"? I've heard that from any number of sources and certainly from the assigners.

You mean about watching the ball er I mean getting it right? I have never heard an assigner, at any level, utter these words. We have been over this many times and I will stand pat with my feelings. It is OK, when the day comes and someone says this in a pregame, I will be looking to see what they are looking at.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Because he was just trying to get it right! Ha Ha Ha!

And that is why he ultimately got it wrong...he missed the GT call because he was watching the ball outside his primary. I have seen that more in this season's tournaments than ever before...officials watching the dribbler clear over on the other side of the court, signalling three point attempts WAY out of their primary, calling fouls WAY out of their primary...and then something like this is missed because of that.

[tomegun]

Rocky, exactly! But people continue to say, "get it right" and then, "trust your partner." Huh? Do those two go together? The art of 3-person calls for an official to dynamically change their focus from one area to the next. Locking in on the ball is asking for disaster. The final decree of "get it right" before leaving the locker room is like giving someone license to watch the ball. The system (3-person) is set up to "get it right"; we don't need to look all over the court to make that call to save our partners for 40 minutes. Trust in partners and trust in the system raise the probability of correct calls. Doing otherwise will lower that probability. I have also noticed an increased number of calls across the paint on ordinary plays that shouldn't be dual.

Ref1 (R1) - "what do you look at on the court?"
Ref2 (R2) - "well, uh, I look at my primary. What do you look at?"
R1 - "I see it all."

True story between two refs that have worked in the last week or so!

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Rocky, exactly! But people continue to say, "get it right" and then, "trust your partner." Huh? Do those two go together? The art of 3-person calls for an official to dynamically change their focus from one area to the next. Locking in on the ball is asking for disaster. The final decree of "get it right" before leaving the locker room is like giving someone license to watch the ball. The system (3-person) is set up to "get it right"; we don't need to look all over the court to make that call to save our partners for 40 minutes. Trust in partners and trust in the system raise the probability of correct calls. Doing otherwise will lower that probability. I have also noticed an increased number of calls across the paint on ordinary plays that shouldn't be dual.

Ref1 (R1) - "what do you look at on the court?"
Ref2 (R2) - "well, uh, I look at my primary. What do you look at?"
R1 - "I see it all."

True story between two refs that have worked in the last week or so!

I am in no way advocating ball watching. What I'm saying is that if you happen to see something (like this GT) while watching your primary then you should make the call. If there is no one in your primary do you just look at empty space? No, you look at the next competitive matchup.

Lets say that lead backed out in order to get a wide angle on the rebound. He would be looking through the paint to watch them. He would have a good chance of seeing the goaltending violation just because it was in front of him.

The only reason I brought up lead making this call is because of my own experience. Last year I was beat down court on a steal. I was new lead and a quick steal caught me off guard. I was inbetween the free throw line and the end line when goaltending on a layup took place. My partners who were also slow in getting down court missed it. I waited a split second for my partners and then called the goaltending violation. I was told by my partner that I shouldn't have made the call because lead should never make that call. He said that the call should just get kicked. Do agree with this?

When I saw this South Carolina play I thought to myself "Did lead see that and choose not to call it?" I'm guessing he didn't see it based on his position and watching the rebounders on the opposite block. Another possibility was that he wasn't 100% sure and I definitely would not call this unless I was 100% sure.

[All_Heart]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zebraman
Why did the C signal a 3-point attempt? That was clearly in the T's area.

Z

Originally Posted by tomegun

Because he was just trying to get it right! Ha Ha Ha!

Zebraman, good catch I didn't notice that the couple of times that I watched the tape. I agree that C should not have been watching the shooter especially because he had a couple of players in his primary.

Tomegun, I'm not saying that "Getting it right" is the best philosophy to put in official's heads. It gives them reason to ball watch and ref their partner's primary. But there are some instances where I think you can stray from the mechanics like the C calling a 10 second back court violation because the clock had ticked off 12.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

I am in no way advocating ball watching. What I'm saying is that if you happen to see something (like this GT) while watching your primary then you should make the call. If there is no one in your primary do you just look at empty space? No, you look at the next competitive matchup.

Lets say that lead backed out in order to get a wide angle on the rebound. He would be looking through the paint to watch them. He would have a good chance of seeing the goaltending violation just because it was in front of him.

The only reason I brought up lead making this call is because of my own experience. Last year I was beat down court on a steal. I was new lead and a quick steal caught me off guard. I was inbetween the free throw line and the end line when goaltending on a layup took place. My partners who were also slow in getting down court missed it. I waited a split second for my partners and then called the goaltending violation. I was told by my partner that I shouldn't have made the call because lead should never make that call. He said that the call should just get kicked. Do agree with this?

When I saw this South Carolina play I thought to myself "Did lead see that and choose not to call it?" I'm guessing he didn't see it based on his position and watching the rebounders on the opposite block. Another possibility was that he wasn't 100% sure and I definitely would not call this unless I was 100% sure.

I don't have a problem with you making that call in that situation...and your partner's comments are a classic way of deflecting attention from himself getting his a$$ beat down the court!! In the Mich/SC play, the L really shouldn't see that because he has other things he's SUPPOSED to be watching. Tomegun's point (and mine) is that the "get it right" philosophy has become an excuse for making calls all over the court, out of primary areas, etc...

Example: I was L, post player about 5 ft. from basket and right in front of me goes up for a little turn-around jumper...defender jumps and blocks it cleanly. Whistle from C and C calls a foul!!! Comment in the locker room at half-time:
Me: What the hell was that?
C:Oh that had to be called!
M:There wasn't even any contact.
C:You must have been straight-lined.
T:No way, there was nothing there. You had no business calling that or looking there.
C:We need to get those right.
M:We need to trust that our partners will get things right in their primary.

End of discussion...haven't worked with that partner again, and hope I never have to again. She was willing to sell out her crew to make herself look good for the home coach (visiting team was from across the country).

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I don't have a problem with you making that call in that situation...and your partner's comments are a classic way of deflecting attention from himself getting his a$$ beat down the court!! In the Mich/SC play, the L really shouldn't see that because he has other things he's SUPPOSED to be watching. Tomegun's point (and mine) is that the "get it right" philosophy has become an excuse for making calls all over the court, out of primary areas, etc...

Example: I was L, post player about 5 ft. from basket and right in front of me goes up for a little turn-around jumper...defender jumps and blocks it cleanly. Whistle from C and C calls a foul!!! Comment in the locker room at half-time:
Me: What the hell was that?
C:Oh that had to be called!
M:There wasn't even any contact.
C:You must have been straight-lined.
T:No way, there was nothing there. You had no business calling that or looking there.
C:We need to get those right.
M:We need to trust that our partners will get things right in their primary.

End of discussion...haven't worked with that partner again, and hope I never have to again. She was willing to sell out her crew to make herself look good for the home coach (visiting team was from across the country).

Rocky,

I completely agree with you and Tomegon on people using the "get it right" statement as an excuse to ball watch. However, I'm not sure that "what the hell was that" were the proper words to start the halftime conversation about your partner reaching out of their area.

Z

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Rocky,

I completely agree with you and Tomegon on people using the "get it right" statement as an excuse to ball watch. However, I'm not sure that "what the hell was that" were the proper words to start the halftime conversation about your partner reaching out of their area.

Z

It was not the start of the halftime talk, nor the start of the conversation about that play. I didn't even bring it up, she did...I simply expressed what I thought about it!

[tomegun]

Sorry, I'm not all warm and cudly when it comes to situations like this. I don't have any problem with what Rocky said. The alternative - and what happens a lot - is to say, "good game" and then rip the official as soon as we get in our car. It is just easier for me to be honest. You could always say, "you're not getting any of my check so you might as well let me earn it!"