crew's last game situation involved a blocked shot, after which the defender made contact with the shooter's body. The contact was not described as hard, but it was enough to knock the shooter to the floor.

It was strongly recommended that officials who desire to move up "no call" this play. The idea was that it might be ok to call in a HS school game, under NF rules, but that the big guys want us to let it go.

Last night, in the Kentucky/Duke game, with just under 30 seconds in regulation, this exact scenario occured. Duke player shot from the post; Kentucky guy came to help and cleanly blocked the shot; defender bumped the shooter, who then fell to the floor.

What was the official's reaction? This official who has "moved up" all the way to the top eschelon of D1 NCAA ball?

Tweet! Foul on the Kentucky defender. No offense, crew, but as we've all been trying to tell you and Eli, this play is a no-brainer. And we all just got proven right on national TV.

Great game, too. Fun to watch. It was probably almost as fun to officiate as my HS game last night. I had a great one, too.

Chuck

Chuck,
I don't believe Crew and Eli were saying that every time a defender gets ball and then contacts body, it is a no-call.
Rather to let the play develop, hold your whistle and see the consequence of the defenders action. If it merits a foul, by all means call one. And they are correct in saying that this type of play is one that supervisors at higher levels want refereed in that manner. They want blocked shots!
I remember sitting in camp listening to John Guthrie relate a story of how he had an offical working in the SEC that did not believe that Shaquille O'Neal could block a shot.
He said every time Shaq would block a shot, this official
would find something to call. After several attempts to
explain to this offical that blocked shots happen, and no change in the officials methods, he was let go.
I think bottom line is: When in Rome......
If your Supervisor wants it called a certain way, by all means, his is the Gospel Truth!:D

I'm going to have to disagree, Drake. If you go back to the thread and read the comments, it's clear that they think that as long as the block was clean up top, you should let slight contact on the body go; even if the slight contact knocks the shooter to the floor. Last night was the perfect example to show that this is not correct. Clean block, slight body contact, shooter falls -- foul! (And this was in a 1 or 2 point ball game with 8.8 seconds to go!!)

I will agree that you officiate the way your supervisor wants you to, in order to move up. But here's a guy who has obviously moved up to the premier leagues. To do that, we all agree that he has to call his game (to a certain extent) the way his supervisor(s) want it called. And he called a foul in the exact situation that crew and Eli told us should be a "no call".

For some reason, crew likes to throw out game situations and then give us twisted rationales for why we should not call them correctly. Last night we saw that the best officials in the country call it correctly.

Chuck

Chuck,
I didn't see the play, but I would think that normally the contact on a play like that would have to be pretty good for
the play to be called. I've worked with and been taught by enough "higher level" guys, and I have been told to call this play exactly as Crew and Eli have stated. And hey, we all make calls in certain situations that sometimes we wish we hadn't. (Not saying the official in last night's game is second guessing himself,) but, and correct me if I misspeak, usually at the end of games, we want fouls to be "top row, grandma" fouls.
i.e., grandma in the top row can call it.
I know that personally, I let "slight" contact on a blocked shot go.
What the definition of "slight" is, is subjective.
As Bill Clinton once said "That depends on what the definition of "is" is".;)

Chuck is exactly correct. As soon as I saw the play at the end of last night's game, I replied to crew's post. The contact was not extreme or violent. According to the statements previously made by crew and eror39, they both would no-call the play last night. Or at least the say they would. I realize they're your buddies Drake but they said what they said. The evidence:

I did not see the play either but why should a player be rewarded for blocking a shot when he had to make illegal contact with the shooter to do it. Just because the player was able to block the shot up top does not give him immunity from making illegal contact with the shooter in his effort to block the shoot. The defender has to have control of his body at all times.

The school of thought that since the defender blocked that shoot, means to overlook the illegal body contact by the defender against the shooter is nothing more than style over substance. In other words, reward athleticsm over skill. I am sorry, it just does not wash. I do not even like to see that kind of horse manure in an NBA game because those players are supposed to be the best in the world.

BktBallRef,
I still will agree with Crew and Eli.
I think what is being brought out here is the willingness
by refs at higher levels than High School, to judge the affect contact has on a play. Does a hand check affect the quickness, speed and balance of the offensive player? If not, let it go. Does a hand in the back of a shooter driving to the basket affect the shot? If not, let it go. Does contact ("slight" or even severe) AFTER a shot has been blocked affect the play? In my opinion, no.
The shot has been blocked. To what disadvantage has the offensive man been placed? His shot has been cleanly blocked! Now if the contact by the defender prevents the shooter from a legitimate chance of getting the rebound, by all means, make the call. Mark, I agree that if the defender had to make illegal contact FIRST to block the shot, call the foul. But I think we're talking about clean block followed by minimal contact. Every play has a beginning, middle and end. The challenge is to keep this in mind and referee the WHOLE play.

Quote:

Originally posted by DrakeM

Imagine that.


So, if he swipes at the ball and misses it, you're going to call a foul if there's contact on the body. But if he does block the shot, you're going to let the contact go? That's the premise that you just proposed.

All that may be fine and dandy in the pro game. But not calling hand checking, a hand in the back on drives, or a foul on a blocked shot has no place in the high school game. Have you ever read the NF's Points of Emphasis? Officials such as yourself, crew, and eli causes the NF to have to address those types of issues every year in it's POE. Yet, such officials just continue on thier merry little way, destined to call what they won't to call.

In the state of NC, we're calling hand-checking strictly by the book and by the POE. Guess what? The players are adjusting and we're eliminating this problem from the game. You have no way of knowing whether a handcheck or a hand in the back is affecting the shooter or not. It's simply judgement. And when you don't know, you can't guess that it's not.

The play last night proves that such philosophies are just the work of a minority of individuals. That minority makes it very difficult for the majority who are calling the game by the rules, as it makes all of us look silly.

I guess if you consider the best 60 plus referees in the world the minority, then you're right.
While you may not like the NBA philosphy, NO ONE studies the game, how it is called and the effects of referees
actions more the NBA.
The POE's are very similar at all levels.
I think it's interesting that the Pro game is blamed for bringing a more physical style of play mentality to the other levels. I find it just the opposite.
The NBA is more concerned with not letting physical play get out of hand than other levels.
They even tried to implement the no-touch hand check rule.
Guess what, it may have stopped hand checking, but it wasn't good for the game. That's why they dropped it.
You mention that in your area the handcheck is a POE and the player adjust. Great! Players will adjust to other styles as well.
I agree when you say there is no way of telling whether a hand in the back affects a shot, and that it's our judgement.
But isn't that what we're out there for. To make judgements?
Your turn.;)

I don't disagree. I've always agreed with you that they are the best officials in the world. But that doesn't mean their priniciples should apply at the HS and college level.



Which is why the style of play promoted by Pat Riley and the NY Knicks in the mid-90's was quickly stopped. Remember the 1994 and 1995 NBA Playoffs. Nobody watch because the play was so rough and un-entertaining. Philosophies such as the one proposed by crew are creating the same problems in HS ball.

That's good. But that doesn't mean it should be dropped as a POE in HS.



Ah, no. That's a NFHS POE, not a NC POE.

I hear complaints quite often about the rough play in high school ball and obvious fouls not being called.

I'm afraid we've abused that judgment to the point that the NF is saying, "Call the foul. It's a foul. Stop rationalizing and call it a foul."

Catch ya later!

If NFHS didn't want us to call hand checks fouls, it wouldn't have been a POE from sometime in the 60's to the present day :D.

I get so much sh*t for calling hand check fouls in the intramural leagues, even when the shot is clearly effected. Oh, well. Just gives me more ammo for T's.

Drake, I'll agree with you that the NBA refs are probably the best officials in the world (although a couple of the top NCAA guys may be better than a couple of the worst NBA guys). But they call the game the way the NBA brass wants it called. They call it differently from the way the NCAA or the NF wants it called. So using them as an example for how we should officiate our games is going to get us into a lot of trouble.

Quote:

I think it's interesting that the Pro game is blamed for bringing a more physical style of play mentality to the other levels. I find it just the opposite.

This is frankly laughable. The pro game is NOT responsible for the increased level of physical play at lower levels? Come on! Did I miss the little ;) somewhere? While the NBA has in recent seasons attempted to cut down on the physical play within the league, the reason they've had to do that is b/c they had allowed it to get completely out of hand. The refs called almost nothing in the post until the offensive player had the ball. The defender was allowed to handcheck the dribbler all the way up the court. The "hard foul" was considered good defense against an easy bucket. All this CRAP filtered down thru the NCAA and into HS. To deny it is not defensible. Players -- and officials -- saw this on TV and starting playing -- and, sadly, officiating -- the same way. That's why the NF POEs include handchecking and rough play again. Last season, our NCAA assignors practically BEGGED us to call handchecking in the open court and backcourt. And that's why we have to call the "arm-bar" now, b/c the NBA allows it.

If you were really just kidding, then I apologize for over-reacting. Please tell me you were just kidding.

Quote:

The NBA is more concerned with not letting physical play get out of hand than other levels. They even tried to implement the no-touch hand check rule. Guess what, it may have stopped hand checking, but it wasn't good for the game. That's why they dropped it.

I think you're wrong again, Drake. They dropped it b/c it wasn't good for RATINGS. They all do it, so the refs have to call it, and the players didn't adjust. It made for too many whistles, and too many stars on the bench in the second quarter, which makes for ugly TV. Since the NBA is entertainment as much as it is a sports league, this is very bad.

You're not going to agree with me, which is ok, b/c all this stuff is not why I started this thread. The beginning of this thread is what it's all about for me. The big time refs call the game right.

Chuck

Always the cynic.;)
Chuck,
I guess I'm just trying to respond to what I percieve is a
lack of willingness to accept different philsophies,
(Or at least the existence thereof)as effective ways of refereeing a ball game.
You're correct when you say the NBA has had to clamp down.
The basketball in the 70's and 80's with the Bad Boy Pistons,
hard fouls etc. was, I'm sure a concern.
I'm talking about my own experience however when I say I feel that they have done more to try and curb excessive physical play than any other level.
Most people who post on this site are intelligent and all have valid points. I enjoy that. Even if they are different than mine. As long as we don't get personal, we all can learn from each other.
Peace.

P.S. Brad, if you happen to check this thread out,
see if you can get Jimmie to give us his input on this particular scenario. What is he taught at his level?
Thanks

I am with BkbBallRef on this one. The game is not athleticism alone it is a combination of skill, brains, and athleticism. In any endeavor, raw talent alone is not enough. That talent must be tempered by skill and brains (which is aquired by hard work and practice).

Hey, how many more posts before we make the "Hot Topic" thread?:D

I don't know but BsktballRef just got the kiss of death here, Mr. D actually agrees with him, doh. Just kidding Mr. D.

Mark,
Never said I didn't agree with this statement.

has anybody ever thooght that andre got the play wrong!

Blasphemy, I say. He must have been right if he's good enough to do that game. No, seriously. I didn't see the play in question, but I did see a replay of a drive and jump shot of Williams' where they called a foul that shocked me. I saw it twice and the camera angle was pretty good, the guy was standing straight up and set and there was very, very slight contact if any and that was because of Williams' followthrough. Another guy swiped at the ball from the side but missed everything. Not sure who he called the foul on, but it looked like a miss to me, which happens.

We agree sometimes. He can't be wrong all the time! :D

Of course he did, if you think he did. :(

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devdog69

Quote:

Originally posted by crew has anybody ever thooght that andre got the play wrong!

Thought of it, but he didn't. It was a good call, and with his experience, if his assignors really didn't want it called, he wouldn't have b/c of the situation. (End of game, let the players decide, etc.) Plus, you can be sure that the officials talked during the TO's to remind each other of what their responsibilities were and to be sure of any contact before making the call.

Quote:

I did see a replay of a drive and jump shot of Williams' where they called a foul that shocked me. I saw it twice and the camera angle was pretty good, the guy was standing straight up and set and there was very, very slight contact if any and that was because of Williams' followthrough. Another guy swiped at the ball from the side but missed everything.

I have to agree that I didn't see much of a foul there. My guess is that from the official's angle, he felt that the contact from behind on the shooter's arm was significant. But I agree that it didn't look like much on replay.

Chuck

So Tony, how long have you been sitting back
letting me fight your battle for you?;)

I saw the play and the replay and wondered if it should have been called. I am second guessing, but we all do it. I also saw the charge (yes I would have to agree with Dick Vitale, and that makes me hurt) that he pointed out was let go, and it was let go. It was near the basket but not under it. My point is that we all miss things and there are differing philosophies.

I will have to take sides with Drake on a couple of things. The NBA has done some serious work to alleviate the roughness of the game, but the NBA was not the only one that had rough games. There used to be a big difference in East Coast vs West Coast ball and a couple of the eastern conferences used to play some pretty physical ball as well. What the NBA did that the other organizations did was define the elements that should be called. While NCAA and NF made it a point of emphasis for some of this, many times the guidelines were not clear. They are getting better at defining things but they should not be POE these guidelines should be listed as part of the rules with the specifics layed out where there is no room for interpretation. Ive seen on this and MCgriffs board many times where prople say yea we do the POE but it gets lost by the way side.
The NBA clearly writes their guidelines and incorporates them into the book with much more clarity than NF. Sometimes they dont get followed but generally they are. It is never hard to figure out when the NBA wants a call. What's interesting is to see how the NBA philosophies and rules make it to the NF level and no one ever figured out that they came from the league.

On the previous play listed I would have to say I would have to see it but if the defense got a great block and is the offense was off balance and gets bumped and goes down, I would be inclined to pass as incidental. If the defemse makes a great block and there is a swat, and there ends up being minor contact, I'll think twice about calling a foul. Why should the defense get penalized for playing great defense?

In general based on my observation, NF officials call more fouls on the defense than on offense, Although there is a lot of contact by the defense, more contact is ruled incidental when it is done by the offense than when it is done by the defense.

I have seen games even the last couple of nights where I had partners bail out the offense. We had a play where 2 bigger players in the middle, basically straight up (hands above head but out about 1-2 feet in front) The defense did not move their feet, they did not move their arms downward, the offense went at them jumped into their arms and the foul called on the defensive player. For what standing there? Clearly they were not 100% vertical but I think they were less at fault than the offensive player.

Offensive player trying to drive in between the defenders when there is no room and its called on the defense.

I am not talking about times when we have to protect the shooter. But there are way too many times when we call things on the defense that should not be called. How many times have we anticipated a call because a player jumped up and we knew there was going to be a foul and it turns out there wasn't or there was only minor contact. Drake is right we have to see the whole play and then exercise our judgement. Sometimes it just isn't a foul.

My concern in my young Rookie career is that I have noticed at the grade school level (3rd - 8th) that I could probably call hand check every other play in addition to the travels, double dribbles, holds and widowmakers that I see. At some point, dont you seriously consider "ADVANTAGE" and make the decision: Advantage gained...TWEET?

What I worry about is the effect of calling the game by the letter to A) the game I'm working, B) my standing with my partner, C) my standing with the league I work for and D) getting the game complete before the next game is scheduled (this is an issue in 3rd - 8th although I dont worry about it nearly as much).

My goal is to move up to Varsity but I also dont want to be known as the guy who calls everything or the guy who turns a basketball game into a chess match. Last week, I went to a game that was being ref'd by a guy I hope to consider a mentor. During the Pre-game (which they allowed me to sit in on) and while we watched the JV game for a few, he elaborated on how they were gonna call the game. This game was what I'll call an inner-city game. To quote my friend: "This game is going to be street ball". "Very little organized basketball so we will tend to let them play or else we could be here all night. For the most part, they called the game as I would have...in other words, I was only surprised by maybe 2 calls. My question is how many of you ADJUST your approach and calls to the specific game?

And finally clarification on hand check...in the NF 2001/2002 POE in the post play section it says "When a defensive player holds, undercuts, displaces by a knee or a forearm in the back, it is a foul. Q: Can a defender, say B3 hold his position and bring his forearm up do help do so. He is not pushing the A3, simply using his forearm to help hold his own ground. Usually, A3 will lean on said forearm to help guage the defender. Comments? I see this a lot and am guilty of it as a rec player.

I guess while I am on this, what about B1 simply touching A1 as A1 dribbles down the floor...no advantage, just touching....comments?

Thanks to all!

Larks (VIT)

drake,
i had to take a break from the beating. glad to see you pick me up when i was down.

No problem.
I'm off the hospital to get bandaged up. Then you can put me back in, coach.:cool:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larks

Quote:

During the Pre-game (which they allowed me to sit in on) and while we watched the JV game for a few, he elaborated on how they were gonna call the game. This game was what I'll call an inner-city game. To quote my friend: "This game is going to be street ball". "Very little organized basketball so we will tend to let them play or else we could be here all night. My question is how many of you ADJUST your approach and calls to the specific game?

Here's what Hank Nichols (Nat'l Coordinator of Men's Officials for all divisions of NCAA basketall) wrote in his most recent bulletin sent to all men's officials. It's dated December 7, 2001. He writes, very succinctly:

"Cardinal Rule.

Style of play will not dictate officiating."

By this, he means that we call the handchecks regardless of whether it's streetball, or Ivy League. We enforce the rules and the players adjust to us. If they don't, they have a short night.

Quote:

And finally clarification on hand check...in the NF 2001/2002 POE in the post play section it says "When a defensive player holds, undercuts, displaces by a knee or a forearm in the back, it is a foul. Q: Can a defender, say B3 hold his position and bring his forearm up do help do so. He is not pushing the A3, simply using his forearm to help hold his own ground.

If it's just resting there between the two players, I say "Arms off" or "No forearm". If it stays there, even just resting, it gets a whistle. As soon as the forearm applies ANY pressure, it gets a whistle.

Quote:

what about B1 simply touching A1 as A1 dribbles down the floor...no advantage, just touching

One touch is nothing. Two touches is a verbal "Hands off!". Next touch is a whistle.

Chuck

Chuck, BasketballRef had a similar statement on the g.p.s. 4 posting so I will pretty much reply in the same manner. I did not see the play you are talking about. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding me. As I stated in my original post a foul should be called if the contact is violent even if the ball is blocked first. The play I am referring to is when the contact is not severe after the ball is initially blocked. BasketballRef said the contact was hard down low on the shooter after the block so maybe Andre felt the contact was severe and warranted a foul or maybe he just missed the play. I can assure you Andre shares my feelings on not calling fouls after the ball is initially blocked if the contact is not severe as I have worked with him and been to his camps. Hopefully, I will be able to see this play on ESPN tonight.

By rule, they are the only ones at fault. Think of it like real estate in NYC - you own the land and the air above it up to a certain height. If a 25-story hotel extends a balcony over a 2-story restaurant, there's probably no problem. When Donald Trump buys the 2-story restaurant and wants to turn it into a 40-story building, there will be a problem - and it's on the hotel, not the restaurant.

Maybe this reply will help this subject make the hot topic thread... as usual all of you guys make excellent points. But I think the bottom line boils down to what has been stated earlier, you call the game the way the assignor wants it called... why? because he/she usually gets their marching orders from coaches via phone calls and meetings with the conference president; And if what they want is not adhered to then guess who goes.

A case in point last season in our juco meeting were were told to tighten down the post (boy that sounds familiar)I just happen to be sitting behind two of our more accomplish officlas in the group who were adamat about not doing it because of their status (both do div II & div I ball) and this year at the juco meeting we noticed that there were two new members added to the roster.

And we all know that in hoops bad odor tend to float uphill....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by eroe39

Quote:

I did not see the play you are talking about. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding me. As I stated in my original post a foul should be called if the contact is violent even if the ball is blocked first. The play I am referring to is when the contact is not severe after the ball is initially blocked.

But the play we're talking about did not involve severe contact, by any stretch. It was slight contact, after a clean block. The contact was slight, but was enough to knock the shooter to the floor. The play I'm talking about from the Kentucky/Duke game was exactly the same as Tony described in his last game situation. Exactly. And it resulted in a foul, not a no-call.

Quote:

BasketBallRef said the contact was hard down low on the shooter after the block so maybe Andre felt the contact was severe and warranted a foul or maybe he just missed the play.

First, I think you mis-read TH's post. The contact was not severe and I don't think anything in TH's posts suggests that it was. Just to be sure, I'll go back and re-read the thread, tho.

Second, there's no way that a person with sight could consider the contact to be severe. You and crew have both said "maybe he got it wrong". But he didn't. He got it right. You can say maybe all day, but he got it right.

Quote:

I can assure you Andre shares my feelings on not calling fouls after the ball is initially blocked if the contact is not severe as I have worked with him and been to his camps.

With all respect, you cannot assure me of that. I don't know you from Adam. For all I know you could just be a name-dropper who likes to sound important. I'm not saying that you are; but I have no way of knowing that you're not.

If you know him, do me a favor and give him a call. And without telling him why specifically, ask him if you could give his phone number to a young guy hoping to move up and hear his philosophy, which is actually true. As part of that conversation, I'd love to ask him if he'd like that call back. I'd bet a whole lot of money that his answer would be 'no'. If he says you can give me his number, email it to me at [email protected].

Thanks,

Chuck

Chuck, I went back and read BasketballRef's quote on the g.p.s.4 posting. He said there was lots of contact on the shooter, not hard contact as I quoted him so I want to apologize to you and BasketballRef for the misquote. However, the same thing is suggested. You say there was slight contact and he says there is lots of contact. To me, this goes to show that every referee views plays a little differently. Andre might of viewed this play as BasketballRef did and thought to himself that is a lot of contact and thus called a foul. You might call these blocked shot plays a little tighter than me. That's fine. I just hope you feel that once the ball is blocked more should be allowed after the block than normal. No two officials have the exact same viewpoint on play calling. Even NBA officials disagree on plays. The NBA has a website available to the NBDL and NBA officials that shows different plays, most of them being tough 50-50 plays. There are several occasions when some officials say to call a foul and others say to pass. Maybe this Duke play was a tough 50-50 play.
As for me to call Andre and ask him to let you have his phone number, get serious Chuck. You really think I am going to call him up and say that some offical I correspond with on a website wants to talk to you about your philosophy on blocked shots. I know Andre only on a referee level, not on a social level. That would not be a phone call I would feel comfortable with.

Hey, you said you could assure me. That's pretty much the only way that you could assure me that you and he share the same philosophy. I did not honestly think that you would be willing to make such a call. (I would not be either.) But if you had, I would've been much more willing to take your comments seriously.

Chuck

gentleman, the play last night when williams drives to the hole is a NO CALL. By the way, did anybody notice that the slot didn't have a whistle. The lead, opposite the lane, had the call. Do you guys think he had a good look coming across the lane and looking through two players backs???!!!That's why that's is the slot's play to live and die with.

[Edited by bpf on Dec 19th, 2001 at 11:55 PM]

Actually, it was called a foul. ;) You apparently agree with crew and Eli. That's fine. I think you're wrong.

Quote:

By the way, did anybody notice that the slot didn't have a whistle. The lead, opposite the lane, had the call.

Actually, I did notice that the Lead took the call, as opposed to the C. I can't be sure if the C cracked the whistle or not, but I'm assuming that if he had, he would've been the one to report the foul to the table. I agree, that it's the C's primary.

However, it's very possible that they pre-gamed this exact situation. I've had partners tell me that when we have a play like this, where we both have an eye on it, that the primary takes the ball and the secondary takes the bodies. I'm not sure how common this is, but it certainly happens. If this crew used that procedure, then the result is exactly as we would expect. C officiates the blocked shot, which is clean, so no whistle. The L is watching the bodies and has the bump which knocks the shooter down.

Quote:

Do you guys think he had a good look coming across the lane and looking through two players backs???!!!

Honestly, yeah, I think he had a pretty darn good look. He wasn't stuck wide on the opposite side. He had already closed down to the lane line and was moving toward the play when the contact occurred. I can't say whether or not he was looking thru the backs of the defenders. But he had just as good a look as the C. Well, I won't go that far. But he had almost as good a look as the C.

It was a good call, and I'm very disappointed that all the guys who want to give advice about moving up are saying that it wasn't.

Chuck

ok, I have this play on tape so I might have a disadvantage here:)

Fact: The slot did not have a whistle on the play.
So if that is indeed his primary why does the lead have a whistle in his secondary when the slot doesn't? Shouldn't an official only go into his/her secondary when the play is obvious and must be called? I'm sure the slot is a qualified official as well, since he was assigned the Duke/Kentucky game. So if, as you say, he had a better look, why shouldn't we trust him to take that play??

One other thing. You are right the block is clean. Just because williams goes down though doesn't mean it was the defenders fault. Wiliams jumped into two guys leading with his shoulder and created all the contact. How can we punish a defender for this? If I'm a college coach and I continue to see plays such as this I just tell my kids to wait until 5 seconds left, drive to the hole out of control, and jump into somebody so we can go to the line.:)

Or do the stars at the D1 level get the benefit of the doubt, just like the NBA??????

Nobody should get the benefit of the doubt on any level and to imply that it happens on the NBA level is absurd.

I think I answered this question already. It's possible that the C was officiating the blocked shot, which was clean. So he had no whistle. And that the L was officiating the body contact, which knocked the shooter to the floor, so he did have a whistle. I've been in this exact situation, personally. (Well, not exact. It wasn't Kentucky/Duke. . .)

Quote:

Just because williams goes down though doesn't mean it was the defenders fault.

Very true. We try to teach this to newer guys. Not all contact is a foul. If the defender is within his vertical plane, even if he's off the floor, then the contact is the shooter's responsibility. Excellent point. But. . .

Quote:

Wiliams jumped into two guys leading with his shoulder and created all the contact.

Nuh-uh. The shooter jumped toward the basket, out of his vertical plane. That's true. But the second defender came from in front of the basket and jumped into the shooter's path. There's no way that he was within his vertical plane. If you jump into the path of the airborne shooter, and there's contact, and he falls to the floor, there's no way you can say that the defense is being unfairly penalized.

Quote:

Nobody should get the benefit of the doubt on any level and to imply that it happens on the NBA level is absurd.

Oh man, woooooooooo-hoooooooo!! Oh, that's a good one. Thanks for adding some levity to the thread. I mean, "to imply that it happens in the NBA. . ." bwahahahahaha!! I can't even finish the sentence without laughing. It's absurd!! AAAAAAAAaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaahahahahahaha !!! Oh man. Lemme print this one out. . .

What? You mean you were serious? You mean. . . naw, c'mon! Jordan never got a phantom call on a posterific drive? Malone doesn't take 22.8 seconds to shoot a free throw? Iverson's crossover was legit all along? The rookie sub who comes in with 4 minutes left in a blow out doesn't always get a foul called on him within the next 2 possessions? Officials don't give the foul to the "other" guy instead of giving the star player his 4th in the first half?

I coulda sworn all those things happened at one time or another. I guess I was wrong on that too. Darn. I'll never move up. I just don't know how to call a game :(

Chuck

Chuck,
I'm going to resist every desire I have to tell you what I would really like to tell you and just comment on some things.

We were initially talking about a college play. Why do you some people on this board all ways have to bring the NBA into it and how NBA officials call games? There is certainly a difference in how an NBA game is officiated and how a game on another level is officiated, and that difference is the NBA game is officiated better. They are the best officials in the world and you are questioning if they cheat??!!

By the way, I think those guys have a lot more to focus on and manage then if Malone takes 10 or 11 seconds to shot a free throw.

Hey, tell me whatever you want. That's why the board is here. That's why I can make totally silly comments about the NBA, which I didn't bring up, by the way. You're not going to hurt my feelings. And the people who are on this board regularly know what good advice is and what's not. So say what you want, and let the people who read it sort it out.

Quote:

We were initially talking about a college play. Why do you some people on this board all ways have to bring the NBA into it and how NBA officials call games? They are the best officials in the world and you are questioning if they cheat??!!

Just for the record, I didn't bring up the NBA, ok? I was only making a joke about the comment that you posted. Secondly, just today, I posted on McGriff's board that the NBA officials are the best. I don't think there's any argument about that from anybody. That's why they're there, and you and I are posting to a discussion board. :)

And while I would never, ever accuse an NBA official of cheating, it's a documented fact that NBA officials often try to help the star players stay in the game. Remember two years ago, when an NBA ref got in hot water by commenting to a player "I know it was [star player]'s foul, but you've only got one"? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?

And can you seriously deny that Jordan, particularly in his dynasty years was treated differently than other players by the officials? You can't. Travels, palming, offensive fouls (Finals against Utah, anyone?) are all just a little tougher to call on Michael than on Derrick Coleman.

I'm not saying anything new here. The only new thing I've heard on the subject is that it's (hold on, while I stop giggling) "absurd" to think that some players get preferential treatment. You made my day, really. Thanks.

Quote:

By the way, I think those guys have a lot more to focus on and manage then if Malone takes 10 or 11 seconds to shot a free throw.

Like what, exactly? Is there a sub at the table? Is Shaq's size 28 big toe over the lane line? How many F-bombs has Rasheed dropped tonight? Come on, it's counting to 10. They don't do it, b/c nobody in the world wants to see a FT violation; even tho everybody in the world knows that he commits the FT violation on every single FT he takes.

Am I smug, silly, maybe disrespectful? You bet. I'm the most sarcastic guy you ever want to meet. Please understand it's nothing against you personally, ok? I'm poking fun and trying to get a cheap laugh. But the underlying fact, under all the cheap jokes and sarcasm, is that you're wrong. I'm just trying to say it in a humorous way.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 20th, 2001 at 02:16 PM]

Chuck, everybody is going to disagree with me but I thought your last two postings were excellent and I wish I had made them. Of course everybody is going to say that us IAABO guys stick together, but that is not relavent here. You hit the nail right on the head.

Oh, great. Thanks a lot, Mark. Now you've just painted a bull's-eye on my chest!!

Chuck

(P.S. - that was sarcasm. See, it's supposed to be hilariously funny. I'm not really being disrespectful to Mark. It sort of conjures up images of "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal" from the Far Side comic strip.)

Ah,you IAABO guys always stick together!
-Mark T.-"I'll stick you forever,Chuckie!".
-Chuck E.-"the feelings mucilage,Mark honey".:D:

maybe this would help
 

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on this board recently as to when posts are meant to be tongue-in-cheek, or sarcastic, or just kidding.

I suggest everyone take advantage of the smilies to indicate their intent.

You know, like this: :(

Er, I mean like this: ;)

Chuck, after I had made my postings it crossed my mind that I had put the "kiss of death" on you.

My fave NBA pseudo-call? Jordan committs one of those "grandma in the back row" fouls while on defense in the opponent's lane that someone mentioned were the only fouls he called in the close of a game (that's a different thread, though).

Who is the foul reported on? Some Bulls player who was injured and lying on the floor the whole play - IN THE BACKCOURT!!!

To imply that it doesn't happen is absurd!

No, please tell us what you would really like to tell us. :eek:

Spirited debate and disagreement are part of this forum. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.

Because before you joined this forum, (BTW this board did exist before you got here) several officials who work summer pro league ball, WNBA and NBDL brought pro mechanics into this discussion, which has been going on in several posts for over a week.

Lighten up and welcome to the forum. :)

Bull$hit! I'm the most smug, silly, disrespectful, sarcastic guy your ever want to meet. :D

Bull$hit! I'm the most smug, silly, disrespectful, sarcastic guy your ever want to meet. :D [/B][/QUOTE]Gee,I want to be just like you guys when I grow up!:D:

this is a discussion forum. no need to get personal. just talk about plays!

Don't worry! You are dad! :D

Gee,I want to be just like you guys when I grow up!:D: [/B][/QUOTE]

To do that, you have to refuse to grow up! ;)

Chuck

Has anybody gotten personal? The only thing TH said was to lighten up. And that was only b/c bpf said he was refraining from saying what he really wanted to (which sounds like it would've been bad). TH realized that my comments weren't personal, and was just saying that there's no reason to get heated. Doesn't sound personal to me.

Chuck