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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%.)

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

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.

Because he was just trying to get it right! Ha Ha Ha! :D :p

LOL. :D :D :D :D :D ;)

Z

How do you possibly take exception to the statement from All_Heart about "getting it right"? :confused: 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.

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.

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.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by zebraman
Why did the C signal a 3-point attempt? That was clearly in the T's area.

Z
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
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.

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. :p

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! :)

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!" :D

I prefer something like, "don't you trust me?" They look at me like, "what are you talking about." Then I say, "well you must not trust me because you are watching in my area as well as yours." It doesn't lead to a fight (in fact, they usually laugh and apologize) but it gets the point across.

Z

That works too!

LOL!! Can't fault that! I would always rather that a partner "rip me" to my face - that gives me the best chance to learn from my mistakes, or maybe clear up a misunderstanding.

jkjenning, I just noticed your signature. Tell us how you really feel! :D M$ has the best marketing department in the universe! That is the only way they can survive.

I'm using my Windows (server) 2003 PC right now, but I've been using my Apple Powerbook more and more. :p

How do I really feel? :(
Open-source Rules ---> proprietary software is a problem, not a solution.
I'm lazy, so I'm using Fedora Core 4 - but there are lots of stable alternatives to M$ Windoze. Yea, they have quite a treasure chest - oh well... they still can't produce reliably stable software and they ignore the quality software others write because "it's not theirs", choosing to try to cram their own standards [Java, anyone?] into the market instead.