The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Tommy Amaker goes nuts for the first time ever (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/25845-tommy-amaker-goes-nuts-first-time-ever.html)

jbduke Thu Mar 30, 2006 08:43pm

Tommy Amaker goes nuts for the first time ever
 
I've never seen this play, nor his reaction. A goaltend on a three-pointer. Not basket interference, but a goaltend, with the ball six inches from the rim. No call, ball clearly changes flight, no call. Weird. Tommy goes twenty feet out onto the court, maybe more. Tim Higgins had no choice. But wow, I wouldn't want to have to deal with Amaker on that one.

Raymond Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:32pm

Michigan/South Carolina
 
I only saw one replay of the goaltending play, and from the angle I saw I couldn't tell if it was goaltending or if the shot was going to be short.

The play that bothered me was the intentional foul in the 1st half against the Michigan player. Not b/c it was a bad call (intentional foul was obvious), but b/c what led up to it. First the Michigan player was smacked in the face [edited for accuracy] when his lay-up was blocked. Then the USC player gets the defensive rebound. After the USC player had gathered the rebound the New Trail started up court ahead of the play and missed the USC player connecting with an elbow to the Michigan player's jaw. The Michigan player then retaliated and pushed the USC player. If the New Trail had stayed behind play, something I've always been instructed to do in 3-man, then he would have seen the elbow to the face and hopefully had a whistle on it.

I've noticed a few veteran officials in the NCAA tourney who as the New Trail get ahead of the play even when there is some defensive pressure. JMO, but I just don't thinks it's a good idea for the trail to get ahead of the play in the backcourt.

JRutledge Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:58pm

It is about time he got upset about something. For the last 4 or 5 years I have wanted the man to get upset about something.

Peace

rulesmaven Fri Mar 31, 2006 01:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge
It is about time he got upset about something. For the last 4 or 5 years I have wanted the man to get upset about something.

Peace

Yeah, where was the outrage when his players were punching each other in the locker room at Seton Hall?

On the first intentional foul, it looked to me (in real time) that Higgins was looking right at the play, even though he was moving up court. Can't tell if he was sheilded from seeing the USC player's elbow action or saw it and didnt' think it was a foul. Either way, the intentional push was an easy call.

As for the goaltend, who knows. I got the sense that if they played 10 times South Carolina would win just about all 10, each probably by about 15 points. The officiating crew got out of there without anyone getting punched, everyone safe, and the better team getting the trophy in a lopsided game.

pizanno Fri Mar 31, 2006 02:49am

I love ESPN motion...
 
...better than Tivo:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=260890130

My 2 cents: Obvious goaltend. The "elbow" was incidental. Michigan player was frustrated cuz his shot was stuffed, then he crowds the rebounder and catches a tricep across the nose.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Also, box score showed no technicals. Is that right?

tomegun Fri Mar 31, 2006 05:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
I've noticed a few veteran officials in the NCAA tourney who as the New Trail get ahead of the play even when there is some defensive pressure. JMO, but I just don't thinks it's a good idea for the trail to get ahead of the play in the backcourt.

Your opinion of this is the right one. Another example of "...they are working the NCAA and I'm not so..." being a non-issue. An official can get away with it 999 times, but the 1,000th time could bite you in the butt. Sort of like ball-watching. :D

tomegun Fri Mar 31, 2006 05:16am

I just saw sportscenter. That was a flat out goaltend. Officials will continue to get attention when plays like this continue to happen.

All_Heart Fri Mar 31, 2006 08:18am

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"

tomegun Fri Mar 31, 2006 08:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Heart
As your assigner will say "Get it right"

Who's assigner says this? :confused:

All_Heart Fri Mar 31, 2006 08:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomegun
Who's assigner says this? :confused:

I've had a number of people above me say that it's important to trust your partners and their primary, but if something has to be called that is obvious to everyone except your 2 partners then call it. This is a play that the coaches and the players don't want to hear that "I saw it but I'm not supposed to call it in lead". I think that the assigner or evaluator would say to lead "Good job on saving the crew". However, it's very possible that lead didn't see this because he was officiating the 2 rebounders on the opposite block.

Raymond Fri Mar 31, 2006 08:39am

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Heart
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"

The "C" should have got this. He had even closed down when the shot went up, so he had a great angle. Trail was at least 30 ft from basket (he was behind and to the right of the shooter) so between bringing the shooter up and down, and his angle/distance, he probably didn't have a good look at all. I would think the Lead is watching bodies in the paint, not the flight of the ball.

This appears to be one where the 'C' either says "I kicked the call" or explains to his supervisor why he didn't make the call.

All_Heart Fri Mar 31, 2006 08:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
The "C" should have got this. He had even closed down when the shot went up, so he had a great angle. Trail was at least 30 ft from basket (he was behind and to the right of the shooter) so between bringing the shooter up and down, and his angle/distance, he probably didn't have a good look at all. I would think the Lead is watching bodies in the paint, not the flight of the ball.

This appears to be one where the 'C' either says "I kicked the call" or explains to his supervisor why he didn't make the call.

I agree, this is definitely C's call. But if he doesn't call it AND Lead happens to see it out of his peripheral vision then Lead should make this call. The only reason I point this out is that some people advocate that Lead should NEVER call this even if they have definite knowledge.

Jurassic Referee Fri Mar 31, 2006 08:46am

Quote:

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.

The first swing did look like a violation. The second swing looked legal- ball was chinned and elbows were going at same speed as the hip rotation.

Looked like goaltending to me too from the angle of the film.

Anybody else think that was a blatant swing on the rim by Balkman on the one dunk near the end of the video? The one where he passed off and got the return pass? Didn't look like there was anybody underneath him when he swung.

tomegun Fri Mar 31, 2006 09:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Heart
I've had a number of people above me say that it's important to trust your partners and their primary, but if something has to be called that is obvious to everyone except your 2 partners then call it. This is a play that the coaches and the players don't want to hear that "I saw it but I'm not supposed to call it in lead". I think that the assigner or evaluator would say to lead "Good job on saving the crew". However, it's very possible that lead didn't see this because he was officiating the 2 rebounders on the opposite block.

I can agree with everything you just said. Now since it is different, who's assigner said "just get it right?" Don't make the two the same thing when they really aren't.

Nevadaref Fri Mar 31, 2006 09:44am

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1