Rescinded T

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't think that it is a question of right or wrong. It was just a strange sitch.
During the dead ball between FTs for UCLA there were subs entering and a UCLA player and a Cal player crossed and bumped in front of the table as they were heading to their benches. The players exchanged words and the Cal player can clearly be seen yapping at the opponent. McRoy is standing nearby and seems to catch the tail end of the exchange. I doubt that he observed the contact. He whistles and T's only the Cal player.
Then there is a quick discussion with a partner and the T is rescinded.

That's what it looked like from the TV. I can't tell you anything else.

Perhaps the partner filled him in on the words or actions that preceeded what McRoy saw/heard....and having the complete picture can change everything.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Perhaps the partner filled him in on the words or actions that preceeded what McRoy saw/heard....and having the complete picture can change everything.

Of course, that is probably what happened, and I obviously understood that, but I have to wonder how words or actions that are deemed unsporting a few seconds before by an official suddenly become no longer unsporting because of some other info from a partner.

[TRef21]

as long as they get the play right, that's all that matters. We will see...

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by TRef21

as long as they get the play right, that's all that matters...

Do people realize how ridiculous this way of thinking is? Apply this theory to a D1 game and have an ugly situation every game where you "just get it right." Right or wrong, you will be fired.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Do people realize how ridiculous this way of thinking is? Apply this theory to a D1 game and have an ugly situation every game where you "just get it right." Right or wrong, you will be fired.

I am pretty sure we are talking about an NCAA game in the OP, or did the PAC 10 drop down to Div II this year and I didn't catch it.....getting it right is the most important thing in the game...yes if you have several games that have ugly situations that you just have to "get right" you may not work as many next year....but if a situation comes up, and you Don't get it right, it is my guess that is more likely to get you fired than getting it right.....

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by cmathews

I am pretty sure we are talking about an NCAA game in the OP, or did the PAC 10 drop down to Div II this year and I didn't catch it.....getting it right is the most important thing in the game...yes if you have several games that have ugly situations that you just have to "get right" you may not work as many next year....but if a situation comes up, and you Don't get it right, it is my guess that is more likely to get you fired than getting it right.....

Since we agree that you will get fired, or at least get less games, we should be able to agree that saying that in the middle of March is ridiculous.

Who do you know of that goes out to officiate a game and doesn't intend on getting calls right? How about an official who has another agenda besides getting calls right? Since we know that they want to get calls right, why say that is all that matters like it is a revelation?

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Since we agree that you will get fired, or at least get less games, we should be able to agree that saying that in the middle of March is ridiculous.

nope we don't agree....I said if it happens several times....1 time with an ugly situation won't get you fired. There was an ugly situation earlier this year in a particular MWC game...New Mexico - Wyoming....very ugly, they may or may not have actually gotten everything correct.....I see that the R in that game hasn't worked yet in the MWC tournament....Nope he didn't get fired, he is too busy working the Big 12 tournament.....hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Of course, that is probably what happened, and I obviously understood that, but I have to wonder how words or actions that are deemed unsporting a few seconds before by an official suddenly become no longer unsporting because of some other info from a partner.

Imagine this:

R sees A1 and B1 near each other and hears A1 say "(mumble, mumble) You're a G#$ D@#! M@##@! F#@^!&# Idiot. (mumble, muble)" Whack.

U1 comes in and tells the R the entire conversation...."Hey, Joe, that wasn't cool last week when Bob said You're a G#$ D@#! M@##@! F#@^!&# Idiot. You're a great guy and it was uncalled for."

While some people might still call a T for profanity, it is certainly not the same. I'm sure I could come up with a profanity free example but I think it adequately draws the picture.

[Red_Killian]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Perhaps the partner filled him in on the words or actions that preceeded what McRoy saw/heard....and having the complete picture can change everything.

Perhaps it can change.....but I would think towards calling a T on both players rather than taking one back. If the official called the original T based on what he heard/observed and did not catch preceding actions, does that really change anything on the T he called? Of course we won't know the full details since none of us were involved but I find this situation based on what is presented in this thread to be very strange. Maybe he thought he heard a particular word or phrase and was mistaken based on his partner's input but if he wasn't sure why call the T in the first place?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Red_Killian

Perhaps it can change.....but I would think towards calling a T on both players rather than taking one back. If the official called the original T based on what he heard/observed and did not catch preceding actions, does that really change anything on the T he called? Of course we won't know the full details since none of us were involved but I find this situation based on what is presented in this thread to be very strange. Maybe he thought he heard a particular word or phrase and was mistaken based on his partner's input but if he wasn't sure why call the T in the first place?

Agreed with what you just said. If the partner came in with additional information he should have had a whistle too OR we will go with a double T personally, I will not recind a Technical.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Agreed with what you just said. If the partner came in with additional information he should have had a whistle too OR we will go with a double T personally, I will not recind a Technical.

Even if that info lets you know you completely missed the boat on what really happened...that with the whole story there was no T'able action???