First AAU of the year

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Apparently, White needed to win by at least 8 points to make the playoffs. So they were trying to give the foul and hope that Red made one shot of the 1-and-1 so they could play a second OT and try to win by enough to qualify for the playoffs.

Then (sorry to threadjack) the fault is with the tournament rules, which should count a win in OT as a win by 1/2 a point (or even 0 points). Overtime is just a means of breaking a tie, it's an administrative quirk that its score is added on.

And as long as I'm threadjacking, I followed a link posted a few weeks ago here to an AAU basketball tournament site -- fancy, hard to read & navigate, but thanks whoever posted it -- and saw it had only youth tournaments. Are there any adult AAU basketball teams left? It used to be common for NCAA varsity teams to play pre-season exhibitions with AAU clubs.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then (sorry to threadjack) the fault is with the tournament rules, which should count a win in OT as a win by 1/2 a point (or even 0 points). Overtime is just a means of breaking a tie, it's an administrative quirk that its score is added on.

But do any leagues do it that way? Say an NFL RB needs another 20 yards to break the single season record for rushing. If his team allows the other team to score on the last play of the game, to instantiate the overtime, do the rushing yards he earns in OT not count towards his career rushing yards?

Would Nash's OT assists not "count"? Why would you not award the points earned as well?

Are you saying that each league has an administrative quirk or am I missing something?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

But do any leagues do it that way? Say an NFL RB needs another 20 yards to break the single season record for rushing. If his team allows the other team to score on the last play of the game, to instantiate the overtime, do the rushing yards he earns in OT not count towards his career rushing yards?

Would Nash's OT assists not "count"? Why would you not award the points earned as well?

Are you saying that each league has an administrative quirk or am I missing something?

They all get this wrong when it comes to scores. It messes up gambling more than anything else. A win in OT or extra innings/frames is clearly closer than a 1 point (or 1 run) win in regulation, because it was tied at the end of regulation play, so it should count as a win by half a point. Something's wrong when a team has a chance to advance in a tournament or beat a point spread only by losing a small lead.

As to individual stats, it's different because players already play in different numbers of games, for different lengths of time, etc. Might as well count stats from extra play like any others.

Soccer gets it approximately right by not adding tie-breaking penalty kick goals to the score of a game. I think they either report the score at the end of regulation and add that the winner was decided by penalty kicks (maybe listing the penalty kick totals separately), or they add 1 goal.

Football using the current Fed-NCAA-CFL method of breaking ties gives no feel for what a game is like when a low scoring tie becomes an astronomic score after a few frames of tiebreaking, when the scores as they come are just tacked on to the regulation game score. Actually when it comes to individual scoring stats in that case, maybe they shouldn't count tiebreakers.

Robert

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They all get this wrong when it comes to scores. It messes up gambling more than anything else.

Who cares?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Had a sitch a number of years ago - I'm L in a half-court press situation just coming out of a TO, and right near the HC that requested the TO. His strategy was to commit a foul before the ball was legally inbounds, yet after the thrower-in had the ball in his hands. Only thing was he told me about his plan. Intentional foul or not?

Of course - intentional foul all the way.

It falls under the definition of preventing the clock from starting. On top of that, the coach was stupid enough to tell me what he was trying to do.

If you call this a common foul, whaddya say to B's coach who overheard your conversation with A's coach and starts screaming that it should have been an intentional foul, as it was premeditated?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Soccer gets it approximately right by not adding tie-breaking penalty kick goals to the score of a game. I think they either report the score at the end of regulation and add that the winner was decided by penalty kicks (maybe listing the penalty kick totals separately), or they add 1 goal.

Yes, but if you win in OT (golden goal or full-time), the goal(s) scored during the OT are reported as part of the score. Regulation time to penalty kicks is apples to potatoes.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It used to be common for NCAA varsity teams to play pre-season exhibitions with AAU clubs.

Robert

The NCAA outlawed that a couple of years ago, since the payoffs for the pre-season games were seen as an inducement to steer HS players from the AAU program to the college team. There are Adult AAU teams, but they're not listed on the boys or girls basketball sites. Men's basketball is considered a different sport and has its own web page, which doesn't appear to be updated much: http://aausports.org/sprt_MensBasketball.asp

The adult women's basketball page is at: http://aausports.org/sprt_WomensBasketball.asp

[KCRef]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Of course - intentional foul all the way.

It falls under the definition of preventing the clock from starting. On top of that, the coach was stupid enough to tell me what he was trying to do.

If you call this a common foul, whaddya say to B's coach who overheard your conversation with A's coach and starts screaming that it should have been an intentional foul, as it was premeditated?

Do you consider this situation different than hearing a coach yell to his player "foul him", in order to stop the clock late in the game?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by KCRef

Do you consider this situation different than hearing a coach yell to his player "foul him", in order to stop the clock late in the game?

You call the act, not what the coach may say. See case book play 4.19.3SitD. In the COMMENT that case play says "Officials must determine if a foul is intentional or not by judging the fouling act itself, not whether or not the coach instructed a player to perform the act." On a throw-in, it's always a judgment call. If the thrower still has the ball, then if you feel that the defender fouled specifically just to stop the clock(iow it wasn't a legitimate attempt to play the ball or the player), call the intentional foul. That's right out of the definition of an intentional foul.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by KCRef

Do you consider this situation different than hearing a coach yell to his player "foul him", in order to stop the clock late in the game?

If he shouts for a player to foul an opponent, the foul could be intentional or not, depending on what I see.

If the coach TELLS ME he's going to foul someone, I have an intentional foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

If the coach TELLS ME he's going to foul someone, I have an intentional foul.

You really, really need to read that case play.

The FED deliberately took that type of thinking out. Read POE#3B in the 2005-06 rulebook, Mark, if you still have it. That'll tell you that you're wrong also....."There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells "Foul" instructions to his/her team does NOT mean that the ensuing foul is "automatically" an intentional foul- even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy."

The FED changed it's philosophy and we have to change with them.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The FED changed it's philosophy and we have to change with them.

I'm okay with the "new" philosophy (hell, I've explained it to my mother only a few thousand times) and, in these situations, like to think that I'm competent at judging whether the foul involved a "proper technique" or not. However, I see a big difference between a coach telling his team to foul and the coach telling me that he plans on fouling. There may be a few situations when I pass on the contact or when a non-intentional foul clearly occurs after this happens, but the majority of the time, I'm signalling with my arms crossed.

[Robert Goodman]

Thanks for the links.

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

The NCAA outlawed that a couple of years ago, since the payoffs for the pre-season games were seen as an inducement to steer HS players from the AAU program to the college team.

Who got paid for those games? The NCAA stopped the games as a favor to the AAU? I don't understand, sorry.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Of course - intentional foul all the way.

It falls under the definition of preventing the clock from starting. On top of that, the coach was stupid enough to tell me what he was trying to do.

If you call this a common foul, whaddya say to B's coach who overheard your conversation with A's coach and starts screaming that it should have been an intentional foul, as it was premeditated?

I went with the common foul. I am not able the discern the intent of the fouler. His action was 100% a common foul without the foul-to-put'em-on-the-line strategy. What if the player internally decided to ignore his coach and in making a legitimate attempt to intercept the pass, fouled A2?

As long as the contact is not untoward, I have a common foul.

If the coach questions about me about it, I tell him that my ruling is the most consistent with the game.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I'm okay with the "new" philosophy (hell, I've explained it to my mother only a few thousand times) and, in these situations, like to think that I'm competent at judging whether the foul involved a "proper technique" or not. However, I see a big difference between a coach telling his team to foul and the coach telling me that he plans on fouling. There may be a few situations when I pass on the contact or when a non-intentional foul clearly occurs after this happens, but the majority of the time, I'm signalling with my arms crossed.

Let it go you Dexter.
Don't be so hard-headed.
...Unless the foul actually is "untoward".

[Juggling, is that metric ?]