The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Here is the Tenn/Virginia Play (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/32944-here-tenn-virginia-play.html)

Big2Cat Tue Mar 20, 2007 08:01pm
Here is the Tenn/Virginia Play
 
Is this a T?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvTfNrt__LI

Nevadaref Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:46pm
In MHO yes. The player was okay to grasp the ring and hang there to avoid landing on the player below him as that is a fairly clear case of an attempt to prevent an injury to himself or another. However, once he used his position up there to his advantage by reaching out and attempting to block the shot, he broke a rule. The proper penalty for the rule he broke is a technical foul.

BktBallRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
In MHO yes. The player was okay to grasp the ring and hang there to avoid landing on the player below him as that is a fairly clear case of an attempt to prevent an injury to himself or another. However, once he used his position up there to his advantage by reaching out and attempting to block the shot, he broke a rule. The proper penalty for the rule he broke is a technical foul.
Preventing injury? Why is he allowed to grasp the rim to begin with? :confused:


I haven't looked at the replay. I saw the play live and knew it should have been a T. :(

Scrapper1 Wed Mar 21, 2007 08:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Preventing injury? Why is he allowed to grasp the rim to begin with? :confused:
I only watched it once, but it looked to me like there was an offensive player directly beneath him.

Raymond Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I only watched it once, but it looked to me like there was an offensive player directly beneath him.
Nah, he was jumping the opposite direction that the offensive player was moving. He had to swing back just to commit the foul.

I think this play could make the "Hank Nichols Hilight Reel".

buckrog64 Wed Mar 21, 2007 09:48am
Looks to me like the ref could have made the call that a player was nearby and thus he was entitled to hold onto the rim for safety's sake. But then he used that advantage of being up on the rim to swat the ball away. That would be a T I believe. Almost may have had a goaltending call too, about a half a second from that from the looks of things.

tnzebra Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:42am
Looks to me he was hanging on the rim and attempted to block the shot with his other hand. I agree this was a weird looking play but the right thing to do is a T.

deecee Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:12am
how did it look like he was hanging on to protect himself?

he was moving away from the play and had to use the rim to swing back to foul the defender. Nevada now I expected you of all people to come up with about 3 or 4 odd rules that would not only show that the T was warranted but that under some circumstances he should have been tar, feathered and forced to play the remainder of the game in clown shoes.

BktBallRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I only watched it once, but it looked to me like there was an offensive player directly beneath him.
Again, why is he grasped the rim to begin with? There's no shot, he just jumps up and grabs the rim. That's a T, period. If he doesn't grasp the rim, there's no reason to hang on to prevent injury.

Camron Rust Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee
how did it look like he was hanging on to protect himself?

he was moving away from the play and had to use the rim to swing back to foul the defender. Nevada now I expected you of all people to come up with about 3 or 4 odd rules that would not only show that the T was warranted but that under some circumstances he should have been tar, feathered and forced to play the remainder of the game in clown shoes.
He doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. He knows he is in traffic and has actually had contact. That's all I need to know about grabbing the rim for safety. I'm only coming up with a T if he has several feet around him to the next player (regardless of the direction they're moving) OR if he showboats rather than just grabs.

Scrapper1 Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Again, why is he grasped the rim to begin with?
Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.

Dan_ref Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.
I agree. 147%.

tmp44 Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:58am
Assume for argument's sake that, by rule, we should have had a technical called once he made the play on the ball while still grasping the rim. Is it possible that the officials here were under the same mindset as the Oden non-intentional? i.e., let the players decide the game?

For the record, I'm not advocating this position, just merely throwing it out there to try to get a better understanding....

biz Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:02pm
Here's what I'm thinking about doing...Not sure there is any backing in the book and I probably wouldn't have done this but it might spark some discussion.

I think that the grasping of the rim in this case calls for a T, but I would want to hold the whistle to allow the offensive player to complete what looks like it could be an easy basket. The calling official signals a personal foul on Cain on the "block" attempt I would call the personal as well as the T. Since the T happened first Tennesse would shoot two with the lane cleared and then shoot the personals with the lane spaces occupied and the game would continue.

rainmaker Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by biz
Here's what I'm thinking about doing...Not sure there is any backing in the book and I probably wouldn't have done this but it might spark some discussion.

I think that the grasping of the rim in this case calls for a T, but I would want to hold the whistle to allow the offensive player to complete what looks like it could be an easy basket. The calling official signals a personal foul on Cain on the "block" attempt I would call the personal as well as the T. Since the T happened first Tennesse would shoot two with the lane cleared and then shoot the personals with the lane spaces occupied and the game would continue.
I don't think you can get away with two separate fouls here. I think it's gotta be one or the other.

Mark Dexter Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by biz
Here's what I'm thinking about doing...Not sure there is any backing in the book and I probably wouldn't have done this but it might spark some discussion.

I think that the grasping of the rim in this case calls for a T, but I would want to hold the whistle to allow the offensive player to complete what looks like it could be an easy basket. The calling official signals a personal foul on Cain on the "block" attempt I would call the personal as well as the T. Since the T happened first Tennesse would shoot two with the lane cleared and then shoot the personals with the lane spaces occupied and the game would continue.
Doesn't this go back to NC's play with the delayed technical? I'd rule differently in this situation, though. If you call a technical for hanging on the rim, then the contact would have to be either nothing or an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.

biz Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
Doesn't this go back to NC's play with the delayed technical? I'd rule differently in this situation, though. If you call a technical for hanging on the rim, then the contact would have to be either nothing or an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.
I haven't seen NC's play. What's the thread title?

If you delay the whistle on the T for grasping the rim then the ball is not dead and you don't have to call the intentional T for dead ball contact.

Mark Dexter Wed Mar 21, 2007 01:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by biz
I haven't seen NC's play. What's the thread title?

If you delay the whistle on the T for grasping the rim then the ball is not dead and you don't have to call the intentional T for dead ball contact.
"False Double Foul with Held Whistle"
http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=32902

tomegun Wed Mar 21, 2007 02:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
Doesn't this go back to NC's play with the delayed technical? I'd rule differently in this situation, though. If you call a technical for hanging on the rim, then the contact would have to be either nothing or an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tomegun Wed Mar 21, 2007 03:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
He doesn't have eyes in the back of his head. He knows he is in traffic and has actually had contact. That's all I need to know about grabbing the rim for safety. I'm only coming up with a T if he has several feet around him to the next player (regardless of the direction they're moving) OR if he showboats rather than just grabs.
Did you see the play? I don't want to offend those that think it shouldn't be a T, but come on! If this is the same play I think it is, this is play-calling 101. He was headed in a different direction than the offensive player and not only did he hang on the rim, he used the rim to stop his momentum and keep himself in the play. Again, if this is the play I think it is - if the player doesn't hang on the rim, he flies by and the offensive player shoots an uncontested layup.

I can't look at this play at work - is this the same play I'm thinking of?

Mark Dexter Wed Mar 21, 2007 03:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah - not sure what I was thinking. It basically is the same thing, and I would call both the same - personal foul on the player who earned the personal foul and a technical on the guy hanging on the rim. I definately overcomplicated it.

Old School Wed Mar 21, 2007 03:51pm
Actually, here's a case where the rulebook could get you in some trouble. Technically, the player should been ejected. If we are going to call it by the letter of the law, we got a technical foul for grabbing the rim, automatic dead ball, then we have another technical foul for contact on a dead ball after the fact. Or you can say, the player held on or used the rim as an advantage to play defense. That's two technicals, players ejected.

I guess you could reason that contact after the ball is dead is to be ignored unless it's flagrant or intentional. Another example of why you have the referee's judgment to go along with the rule. The correct call is one technical and the ball is dead. New 35 second shot clock after the 2 free throws.

BTW, what was the call here?

deecee Wed Mar 21, 2007 04:03pm
old I think you and nevada can start a school for the overjudicious. but at least for once your not entirely talking out of the wrong hole.

Jurassic Referee Wed Mar 21, 2007 04:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee
old I think you and nevada can start a school for the overjudicious. but at least for once your not entirely talking out of the wrong hole.
Unfortunately, your knowledge of the rules matches Old School's.You're both wrong.

Jurassic Referee Wed Mar 21, 2007 04:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old School
Actually, here's a case where the rulebook could get you in some trouble. Technically, the player should been ejected. If we are going to call it by the letter of the law, we got a technical foul for grabbing the rim, automatic dead ball, then we have another technical foul for contact on a dead ball after the fact. Or you can say, the player held on or used the rim as an advantage to play defense. That's two technicals, players ejected.

I guess you could reason that contact after the ball is dead is to be ignored unless it's flagrant or intentional. Another example of why you have the referee's judgment to go along with the rule. The correct call is one technical and the ball is dead. New 35 second shot clock after the 2 free throws.

BTW, what was the call here?
No, this is a case where knowing the rulebook lets you call the play <b>correctly</b>.

What makes you think that the ball is <b>automatically</b> dead on the technical foul? The rules say different. A foul committed by the defense while a player is in the act of shooting does <b>NOT</b> make the ball dead. If the shooter has started the trying motion, the ball remains live until the try is over, even if the ball was still in the shooter's hands when the "T" occurred. The subsequent foul on the shooter is just a normal personal foul. It's a contact foul during a live ball, and the contact does <b>not</b> have to be intentional or flagrant.

It's NFHS rule 6-7EXCEPTION(c) for anybody that actually owns a rule book. The NCAA rule is exactly the same.

Basic rule. Once agin, ignore any and all raving by the Master of Obfuscation. <i>He knows not what he speaks!</i>

Edited to add the appropriate NCAA cite-- NCAA rule 6-6-2--<i>"A live ball shall not become dead when a foul is committed by an opponent of a player who starts a try for goal before a foul occurs, provided that time does not expire before the ball is in flight."</i>

deecee Wed Mar 21, 2007 04:58pm
i just said he wasnt entirely talking out of his *** -- he wouldnt T up a coach who questioned his integrity but here he will t up a kid and maybe even eject him. cant figure out if Ol wants to effect the game or not. he comes at us with so many vaild and pertinent points.

Jurassic Referee Wed Mar 21, 2007 05:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee
he comes at us with so many vaild and pertinent points.
Two of a kind......:rolleyes:

bob jenkins Wed Mar 21, 2007 05:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old School
Actually, here's a case where the rulebook could get you in some trouble. Technically, the player should been ejected. If we are going to call it by the letter of the law, we got a technical foul for grabbing the rim,
In NCAA, grabbing the rim is an indirect technical, not a direct technical, so the player wouldn't have been ejected for two technicals (even if that had happened).

It also needs to be in "an excessive, emphatic manner".

And, according to my 2006 book (what I have handy) it's not a T to plave the hand on teh rim to gain an advantage -- only to place the hand on the backboard.

I didn't see the play, so I have no comment on what should have been called.

Nevadaref Wed Mar 21, 2007 05:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
And, according to my 2006 book (what I have handy) it's not a T to plave the hand on teh rim to gain an advantage -- only to place the hand on the backboard.
Very true, Bob. I noticed the same thing a couple of hours ago, while doing some additional research on this play.

The NFHS has 10-3-5:
"A player shall not:
. . . Illegally contact the backboard/ring by:
a. Placing a hand on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage."

However, the NCAA rule does not mention the ring. It only says backboard.

10-3-16 "Placing a hand(s) on the backboard to gain an advantage."

The rules that cover the ring say nothing about doing so to gain an advantage.

10-3-13"Grasping either basket in an excessive, emphatic manner during the
officials’ jurisdiction when the player is not, in the judgment of an official,
trying to prevent an obvious injury to himself, herself or others."


10-3-15 "Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing either the backboard or ring to vibrate while the ball is in flight during a try, or while the ball is touching the backboard, is on the basket ring, in the basket net or the cylinder."

My interpretation of this play is that the player was okay initially because I deemed him to be grasping the ring to prevent an injury, but once that dangerous situation passed, he was now grasping the ring not to prevent an injury, but in order to aide his making a defensive play. Thus it is a matter of the timing. I believe that 10-3-13 needs to be applied twice during this play. The first time seems to be legal, but the second time that the player's actions are judged, they are worthy of a technical foul.

Raymond Wed Mar 21, 2007 06:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
Did you see the play? I don't want to offend those that think it shouldn't be a T, but come on! If this is the same play I think it is, this is play-calling 101. He was headed in a different direction than the offensive player and not only did he hang on the rim, he used the rim to stop his momentum and keep himself in the play. Again, if this is the play I think it is - if the player doesn't hang on the rim, he flies by and the offensive player shoots an uncontested layup.

I can't look at this play at work - is this the same play I'm thinking of?
It's the same play Tom. While it may be debatable whether his initial grasp of the rim could be legal/illegal, there is no doubt in my mind that the subsequent swinging on the rim was illegal and not necessary for his safety. He jumped straight up off 2 feet. It's not like a player who's on a fast break and jumps off 1 foot and his momentum causes him to swing on the rim to keep from falling.

tomegun Wed Mar 21, 2007 06:35pm
I looked at the play, read the new posts and looked at the play again. There is some serious over-officiating going on here. The player would have done a "fly by" he if didn't grab the rim. He did NOT grab the rim because he was in danger. Do you guys realize why he even swung on the rim? Because his body was going that way and grabbing the rim stopped his upper body and his legs retained momentum. Without the (rim) grab, there is no foul and it should have been a T.

jkjenning Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmp44
Is it possible that the officials here were under the same mindset as the Oden non-intentional? i.e., let the players decide the game?
A player commits an intentional foul or a technical foul... that means the player made his/her contribution towards deciding the game - to not assess the foul means you are preventing the player from "deciding the game", imo.

BktBallRef Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.
Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.

Camron Rust Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.
(I was watching the game too)

While from your view, it may have been clear that there was no one immediately there or that his momentum would have carried him safely away, can you say that he knew that? Is it possible that with all the bodies converging towards the bucket, he felt there was someone there? Or that the ref felt there were others sufficiently close to justify no T?

I simply didn't think it was "obvious". Possible, yes. But not "obvious'.

Jurassic Referee Thu Mar 22, 2007 05:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While from your view, it may have been clear that there was no one immediately there or that his momentum would have carried him safely away, can you say that he knew that? Is it possible that with all the bodies converging towards the bucket, he felt there was someone there?
What difference would that make?:confused:

I really don't think that we're supposed to call this play by trying to guess what a player is thinking. The official has to decide whether the player grabbed the ring to avoid an injury or not. Jmo, but the absence of anyone underneath the player when he grabbed the ring would make it a "T". I saw the play exactly the same way Tomegun saw it.

bob jenkins Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:51am
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

socalreff Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old School
Actually, here's a case where the rulebook could get you in some trouble. Technically, the player should been ejected. If we are going to call it by the letter of the law, we got a technical foul for grabbing the rim, automatic dead ball, then we have another technical foul for contact on a dead ball after the fact. Or you can say, the player held on or used the rim as an advantage to play defense. That's two technicals, players ejected.

I guess you could reason that contact after the ball is dead is to be ignored unless it's flagrant or intentional. Another example of why you have the referee's judgment to go along with the rule. The correct call is one technical and the ball is dead. New 35 second shot clock after the 2 free throws.

BTW, what was the call here?
There was no call. Just a common shooting foul for the contact on the shooter, which by the way was 80% ball and 20% foul.

socalreff Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")
I tend to agree. They didn't know what to call or how to administer it so they didn't call anything. Either that or they didn't want to make a gutsy call. Either they need to do some book review or something else.:confused:

tomegun Thu Mar 22, 2007 01:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")
This is entirely possible. However, at their level they get surprised by very little. Furthermore, after all the surprise has worn off and you look at the replay, it should have been a technical. Remember, these officials were there for a reason and it wasn't to be JAFO.

Bob, do you really try to avoid conflict that much?

Camron Rust Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
What difference would that make?:confused:

I really don't think that we're supposed to call this play by trying to guess what a player is thinking. The official has to decide whether the player grabbed the ring to avoid an injury or not. Jmo, but the absence of anyone underneath the player when he grabbed the ring would make it a "T". I saw the play exactly the same way Tomegun saw it.
It means everything. For a player to grab the ring to avoid an injury, that means that they must have perceived that a threat was nearby. If it is at all possible that the player could have felt he was in danger, he can grab the rim. In fact, it doesn't even take another player to make that true...he could be all alone and just be out of control....flying sideways.

Raymond Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
he could be all alone and just be out of control....flying sideways.
That's great to know; I think I mentioned that in an earlier response to Tomegun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
It's the same play Tom...It's not like a player who's on a fast break and jumps off 1 foot and his momentum causes him to swing on the rim to keep from falling.
But in this case that's pure nonsense. He jumped straight up off 2-feet. The offensive player move to the other side of the rim. Cain grabbed the rim and swung back to make a play on the ball. The ref either missed it or kicked it or had a different opinion at the time, no big deal. But for anyone to sit here after viewing the replay and still try to say, in retrospect, that player hung AND swung on the rim for safety concerns is, in the words of Mike Tyson, ludicrous.

socalreff Thu Mar 22, 2007 02:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.
Just wondering..... If you look at the play again...
Question for everyone:
Would you have called a foul on Cain if he didn't swing on the rim, solely based on his play on the ball? Would this have been enough to call a foul?
I've seen plays that were not as clean as this one not called.

Old School Thu Mar 22, 2007 03:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")
My point exactly.

Going back to your earlier post Bob on the NCAA rule. I think that's a loophole but, do you think the officials knew this rule which is why they didn't call it? IOW, they made the right call which is a no-call. I can't believe it's okay to grab the rim and use it to an advantage if the ball is live, but you can't grab the rim when the ball is dead. Unbelievable!

JR, your point is valid. I was reasoning that the shooting motion had not started. In that case, I would blow the play dead immediately with the T. However, going forward from here, if the T was called, and then the subsequent foul on the shot, that's two fouls. Oh my goodness! I hope this doesn't ever happen to me in an NCAA game.

This might have been the most unique play of the year. I know I would defiantly hesitated if I saw that for the first time. But I also know that I'm calling a goaltending or a technical or something more than just a 2 shoot foul here. In fact, my initial reaction would be my call. Technical foul, shooting motion hasn't started, 2 shots and the ball back. That's the best call here.

Mark Dexter Thu Mar 22, 2007 03:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by socalreff
Just wondering..... If you look at the play again...
Question for everyone:
Would you have called a foul on Cain if he didn't swing on the rim, solely based on his play on the ball? Would this have been enough to call a foul?
I've seen plays that were not as clean as this one not called.
Yes.

From the replay, I can't tell if the contact "on the arm" was there or not, but the defender definately smacked the offensive player in the face and caused him to go to the ground on the follow-through.

Jurassic Referee Thu Mar 22, 2007 05:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old School
Oh my goodness! I hope this doesn't ever happen to me in an NCAA game.
Not to worry, Old School, not to worry!

bob jenkins Thu Mar 22, 2007 07:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
This is entirely possible. However, at their level they get surprised by very little.
Yes, but this play was not only unique, it was very unique. (said to annoy Mr. Grammer Person (written to annoy Ms. Spelling Person)).

I think they saw it, said, "WTF?" and then it was too late.

Heck, even here with some review, we can't agree on what the call should be.

Quote:
Bob, do you really try to avoid conflict that much?
???

Camron Rust Thu Mar 22, 2007 07:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
That's great to know; I think I mentioned that in an earlier response to Tomegun.
But in this case that's pure nonsense. He jumped straight up off 2-feet. The offensive player move to the other side of the rim. Cain grabbed the rim and swung back to make a play on the ball.
That's not what others are claiming. They've claimed that he was sailing away from the shooter and grabbed the rim to change directions.

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 07:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins

???

I thought I made my question perfectly clear. Many of your posts come from a non confrontational point of view. It is almost as if you want to get involved as little as possible regardless of what the right thing to do might be.

bob jenkins Fri Mar 23, 2007 07:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
I thought I made my question perfectly clear.
You didn't.

Quote:
Many of your posts come from a non confrontational point of view.
Part of that's the moderator's job, part of that is that I'll give my opinion and/or state the facts as I see them and move on. I see no point in the coinstant bickering and back-and-forth that goes on.
Quote:
It is almost as if you want to get involved as little as possible regardless of what the right thing to do might be.
The right thing according to whom? If it's the "right thing according to you" then I take it as the highest compliment that I don't do it.

Now, which of these smileys means "you're an effin a-hole but I can deny I said it because I used a smiley?"

mick Fri Mar 23, 2007 08:09am
"Beware the fury of a patient man." John Dryden

Jurassic Referee Fri Mar 23, 2007 08:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Now, which of these smileys means "you're an effin a-hole but I can deny I said it because I used a smiley?"
LOL....now you're getting the idea.

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
The right thing according to whom? If it's the "right thing according to you" then I take it as the highest compliment that I don't do it.
You know, that is cute and all - I dig the whole fury of the moderator thing and all that jazz. The only problem is I wasn't so much talking about what you say as far as the board is concerned as I was talking about what you would do on the court. Your main problem barking up this tree is I'm not an internet official. I am more than capable of backing up anything I say on the court. I don't give a rat's A$$ if you can type it, do you have the intestinal fortitude to do it on the court?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Now, which of these smileys means "you're an effin a-hole but I can deny I said it because I used a smiley?"
Now you're standing up for yourself! :D I didn't know you had it in you.
Being an a-hole on the court is often necessary because what we do isn't always popular. I don't look to take the path of least resistance, I choose the path that is right for the game. I know I'm not an a-hole off the court so you don't have to deny you ever called me anything.

I was just concerned about all this mansy pansy, "I don't know if I would call a .....yada yada" (not a direct quote) BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at the play, judge the play and move the h3ll on. Often, being a nice guy to one team, player or coach means you are sticking it to the other team, player or coach.

This was fun, we should do it again sometime. :D

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")
BTW, this is the words deleted by poster comment that prompted my question. Everyone misses/blows calls - they don't need a virtual shoulder rub. I don't think we were accusing them of a crime; we were just discussing the play after seeing the video.

Looking into my crystal ball, and thinking of past events, I predict a parting shot from Mr. Jenkins and then the thread will be locked.

bob jenkins Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
BTW, this is the words deleted by poster comment that prompted my question. Everyone misses/blows calls - they don't need a virtual shoulder rub. I don't think we were accusing them of a crime; we were just discussing the play after seeing the video.

Looking into my crystal ball, and thinking of past events, I predict a parting shot from Mr. Jenkins and then the thread will be locked.
I stand by my original statement.

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:27am
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

Aren't the words in pink your original statement?

bob jenkins Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

Aren't the words in pink your original statement?
Yes. :confused:

I stand by my "I stand by my original statement" statement. :mad:

I really don't know WTF you are asking.

AFAIK, there were two questions in this thread:

1) What should the correct call have been? I have no opinion on this. I didn't see the play and it's been debated ad nauseum here.

2) Why didn't the officials make a call? Options:

a) there was no call to make (see question 1)
b) they didn't see it
c) they were surprised by the play and an explanation did not spring immediately to mind. We are all taught it's better to miss something that happened rather than call something that didn't happen. A "that looked ugly so it had to be something" call (that turns out to be wrong) is going to be a major black mark on an official.

I'm only suggesting that option C is a reasonable explanation for the no-call.

I don't really give a dam* whether you think it is or not.

rockyroad Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
You know, that is cute and all - I dig the whole fury of the moderator thing and all that jazz. The only problem is I wasn't so much talking about what you say as far as the board is concerned as I was talking about what you would do on the court. Your main problem barking up this tree is I'm not an internet official. I am more than capable of backing up anything I say on the court. I don't give a rat's A$$ if you can type it, do you have the intestinal fortitude to do it on the court?



Now you're standing up for yourself! :D I didn't know you had it in you.
Being an a-hole on the court is often necessary because what we do isn't always popular. I don't look to take the path of least resistance, I choose the path that is right for the game. I know I'm not an a-hole off the court so you don't have to deny you ever called me anything.

I was just concerned about all this mansy pansy, "I don't know if I would call a .....yada yada" (not a direct quote) BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at the play, judge the play and move the h3ll on. Often, being a nice guy to one team, player or coach means you are sticking it to the other team, player or coach.

This was fun, we should do it again sometime. :D
And it seems that your main problem here is that you ARE judging someone else to be an internet official without having any knowledge of that persons true ability (true identity just sounded too comic-bookish to use here)...you have done that before on this board. Those of us who "know" Bob know his accomplishments and admire him for them...there was a question asked, he gave his answer, and you didn't like it because it wasn't something you could ague or b!tch about...tough. It was a good answer...

Jurassic Referee Fri Mar 23, 2007 01:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
Now you're standing up for yourself! :D I didn't know you had it in you.
Being an a-hole on the court is often necessary because what we do isn't always popular. I don't look to take the path of least resistance, I choose the path that is right for the game. I know I'm not an a-hole off the court so you don't have to deny you ever called me anything.

I was just concerned about all this mansy pansy, "I don't know if I would call a .....yada yada" (not a direct quote) BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at the play, judge the play and move the h3ll on. Often, being a nice guy to one team, player or coach means you are sticking it to the other team, player or coach.

This was fun, we should do it again sometime. :D
I get it. If I call you a f***ing azzhole, then I'm a great official. I don't really know whether I can agree with that logic or not, but in the hope of improving as an official, I'll give it a try.

Tom, you're a f***ing azzhole.

Whoaaaaaa......it works.

Whee, me.

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 01:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad
And it seems that your main problem here is that you ARE judging someone else to be an internet official without having any knowledge of that persons true ability (true identity just sounded too comic-bookish to use here)...you have done that before on this board. Those of us who "know" Bob know his accomplishments and admire him for them...there was a question asked, he gave his answer, and you didn't like it because it wasn't something you could ague or b!tch about...tough. It was a good answer...
If you look back over this thread you will see that many others gave their opinion of the play before we heard the soft/unconfrontational/reaching opinion so a differing opinion isn't my problem at all.

I KNOW their are some internet officials among us; I don't think I said Bob was one, I think I said I'm not one. Let me also say this, and it has nothing to do with Bob specifically. It would be a mistake to automatically assume accomplishments equal ability. Like I said, so you don't twist it later, that has nothing to do specifically with Bob. If you really know Bob, that is cool, but I hope you really know him when you say that and not just communicate with him through a discussion board. I've said that before and I still believe it.

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 01:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
I get it. If I call you a f***ing azzhole, then I'm a great official. I don't really know whether I can agree with that logic or not, but in the hope of improving as an official, I'll give it a try.

Tom, you're a f***ing azzhole.

Whoaaaaaa......it works.

Whee, me.
I would like to think you are only having some fun - like me, but I don't see where you are getting this from. I never said that anyone was a good, great or better official for calling me an a-hole. Also, I never said that anyone was a good, great or better official for being an a-hole on the court. What I said, and I quote myself, "Being an a-hole on the court is often necessary because what we do isn't always popular." You might like to call it an a-hole, jerk, prick or anything else, but can you say this statement isn't true?

mick Fri Mar 23, 2007 01:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
If you really know Bob, that is cool, but I hope you really know him when you say that and not just communicate with him through a discussion board. I've said that before and I still believe it.
Oh, yeah, tomegun !
He's got a striped shirt, a whistle, heather gray slacks and everything. :)

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 01:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mick
Oh, yeah, tomegun !
He's got a striped shirt, a whistle, heather gray slacks and everything. :)
Can you tell me what color heather gray is? :) I might be too young to know that color!

mick Fri Mar 23, 2007 02:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
Can you tell me what color heather gray is? :) I might be too young to know that color!
Nah, you're not too young. Heather gray is a color of baseball umpire slacks. We worked some hoops and then finished the evening with a ball game. ;)

bob jenkins Fri Mar 23, 2007 03:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
I would like to think you are only having some fun - like me, but I don't see where you are getting this from. I never said that anyone was a good, great or better official for calling me an a-hole. Also, I never said that anyone was a good, great or better official for being an a-hole on the court. What I said, and I quote myself, "Being an a-hole on the court is often necessary because what we do isn't always popular." You might like to call it an a-hole, jerk, prick or anything else, but can you say this statement isn't true?
With the caveat that one should never say never, I'll say that an official should never be an a-hole on the court. An official should be firm, decisive, strong, willing to make the unpopular, but right decision.... but should still be professional (which I guess Roger's would have as an antonym of a-hole).

JRutledge Fri Mar 23, 2007 03:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
With the caveat that one should never say never, I'll say that an official should never be an a-hole on the court. An official should be firm, decisive, strong, willing to make the unpopular, but right decision.... but should still be professional (which I guess Roger's would have as an antonym of a-hole).
If you are firm about just about anything on or off the court someone will consider you as acting like an A-hole. They just might not say it to your face.

Peace

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 03:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
If you are firm about just about anything on or off the court someone will consider you as acting like an A-hole. They just might not say it to your face.

Peace
Well said and what I meant by a-hole in this instance.

Jurassic Referee Fri Mar 23, 2007 04:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
With the caveat that one should never say never, I'll say that an official should never be an a-hole on the court. An official should be firm, decisive, strong, willing to make the unpopular, but right decision.... but should still be professional (which I guess Roger's would have as an antonym of a-hole).
What Bob said above, Tom. I couldn't say it better and I agree with what he said completely.

You have to have the balls to make the unpopular but correct call, when necessary. You <b>are</b> going to piss people off when you make that call. What you don't want to do however is <b>needlessly</b> piss people off when you make the call. I'm sure that you know what I mean by that.

Of course, having said that, I still reserve my personal right to call you a f**ing azzhole every now and then.:D

Note the "smiley". That makes it OK.

tomegun Fri Mar 23, 2007 09:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
What Bob said above, Tom. I couldn't say it better and I agree with what he said completely.

You have to have the balls to make the unpopular but correct call, when necessary. You are going to piss people off when you make that call. What you don't want to do however is needlessly piss people off when you make the call. I'm sure that you know what I mean by that.

Of course, having said that, I still reserve my personal right to call you a f**ing azzhole every now and then.:D

Note the "smiley". That makes it OK.
I guess we have really went the long way on this one!

Read your second paragraph above, which I agree with. Then read Bob's post that I responded to and finally look at the play again. There will likely be silence after that since you know as well as I that after looking at that play it should have been a T.

Rich Fri Mar 23, 2007 09:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
With the caveat that one should never say never, I'll say that an official should never be an a-hole on the court. An official should be firm, decisive, strong, willing to make the unpopular, but right decision.... but should still be professional (which I guess Roger's would have as an antonym of a-hole).
How about "have stupid giveaways thrown at you followed by a police escort?"

RushmoreRef Fri Mar 23, 2007 09:40pm
Good thread.....I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on why he grabbed the rim....he could have felt he needed to do if to prevent a possible injury...

As soon as he attempted to make a play on the ball, it's a T...he's no longer hanging on the rim to prevent injury, if he can attempt to block a shot than he can get himself back to the floor. No shooting foul...it's a T.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1