Men's Championship Game
 

Did anyone see Ed Hightowers traveling call in the 1st half before the media T.O. under 12 (11:33). OMG blows the whistle with his classic "BEEP, BEEP: Signals traveling really slow and takes baby steps showing the millions of people around the nation what the Kansas player did. That is like totally awesome

So far I think Hightower's signals and such are a little over the top.

What about when Rush went in for a layup early in the game and the Memphis guy undercut Rush. Why no intentional Foul?

Not sure why he completely turns his back to the players on OOB plays and then points to the moon. :confused:

Ah, let's see...because it wasn't an intentional foul?

He tried to get by him without contact but brush him with his right arm. That's not an intentional foul in my book and obviously not in their book either.

Quote of the night: "You have to know the rules." - Billy Packer :confused:

This was actually after he gave a correct interpretation of the double dribble rule. :eek: I'm expecting the apocalypse to begin during the first media TO of the second half.

Let me ask a question. Why should it have been intentional? I didn't see it, but nothing you wrote here indicates it should have been intentional. Unless the rules are different in California. :)

Actually the only part he got right was he could recover it. He then said it would be a violation if he advanced the ball.

So the world is safe, he's still a moron.

And I can't stand Hightower. He's a drama queen and the speed of this game was way beyond him, he could not keep up.

A little over the top is an understatement. Dude looks like the court jester out there.

Packer at his best.

Rose letting the throw-in get up court before picking it up.

He's risking a 5 second count call, Jim.

Thankfully the world has reset itself back to normal.

The other good one - towards the end of OT, clock clearly didn't stop after a foul and about 6 seconds ran off. The crew went to the monitor, and Packer claimed that they were checking who the fouler was. :rolleyes: (Gotta love him being wrong twice on that one.)

Timing Error
 

Did anyone else notice this?

Kansas scored with 1:00 left on the clock in the 2nd half, and the clock stopped until the inbound. If noticed during the next dead ball, would this be correctable using a stopwatch and the monitor?

Yes.

<s>No.</s> Yes.

I thought so too, but I'm on the couch and he's there..........sigh.

Looks like he kept up just fine. Another data point showing that one does not have to run like a gazelle to have good judgment and work a good game.

Final Fours in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2008. Last year he was out with a knee injury.

It should had been a flagrant personal foul. And I am not saying that because I am a KU fan either.

MTD, Sr.

Can't we all just get along? (Thanks Rodney!)

can't we all get along. That deflection call was really over the top. Was that him though. Overall I would give the refs an A-. Perhaps even Bilas and the rest of the Espn crew will give them some love. Or not


I missed that play when there could have been a double dribble. what happened exactly? I saw Rose pick up the ball but I didn't see what happened next or before. and I can't remember if he dribbled or passed right after.

Memphis was carrying the ball all game, too bad the crew was so busy trying to get there to be able to get an angle to see it.

Wow, when the heck did this get off track? Man, I do not even know where to start. Maybe I will just get off the track right now.

Peace

Coaches are going to think what they want to think and they will not be on this board to come to their conclusions. And could give a damn what a coach thinks in the first place.

Peace

Good point. I'm in that off-season mode where i tend to forget that one specific point.

You forgot your smiley face. ;)

No way that was flagrant...ever. Relatively little contact as he ran by him....both at full speed. He was trying to avoid it but misjudged where the shooter was going to go. Sure it happened to topple him, but the defender didn't duck down under and take his legs out.

Since the player that picked up the ball had already used his dribble, Packer, as much as I hate to say so, was entirely correct on that one. (advance => dribble)

Sorry, you're simply mistaken. Perhaps they're just better ball handlers than you're use to seeing. There was once or twice that could have been, but not all game.

Good choice.

I think that I'll just let this one wander off into oblivion all by itself too.

Sad.

He's there because the evaluators go beyond his histrionics to see if he's making the calls that need to be made, getting 'em right and keeping things under control. Iow, they don't really care <b>how</b> he gets there; they care that he actually <b>does</b> get there.

He gets the job done. That's all that matters.

Just my take......

PS- I have to add that I didn't see him call any game-interrupters either.:D

Wow, you guys are harsh.

While I did bring up some of Hightower's histrionics, we have to be fair. He isn't jumping all around like two "Big Dogs" from out west. He just seemed to be doing a little bit more than he normally does.

Also, except for Verne Harris, the west coast wasn't really represented at all in the final four was it? Actually, Harris is from Denver I believe so he is only from the "west coast" because he is in the Pac-10.

The first time, and each time, I saw it, I thought that the defender did undercut the shooter with intention.

Was he just trying to cause the shooter to alter his shot? I don't think so.
Was he trying to injure the shooter? I don't think so.
They don't even do that undercut in the NBA. The defender steps away and watches because the repercussions would be enormous.

The defender angled under him and slowed. in order to be in the path. He knew exactly where the shooter was, and he knew exactly what the result was going to be.

Then why wasn't the intentional called? Because the defender made no other overt move at the shooter, because the shooter didn't get hurt and because the officials did not think the game would be better for such a call [much like the no-call on the 25' bouncy ball].

Did the defender know what he was doing ? You can take it to the bank.

Sure he tried to be in his way (isn't that defense). But it was far from flagrant. He had not intent to harm or injure or create vicious contact. He didn't bend over to submarine him. He just got in front of him.

Ha! I guess he did, but it would have been more sporting to be facing the opponent. Defender knew what he was doing, and so do I. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ak...smiley-041.gif

I forgot that!!!! buuuuteeefuulll!

I made another post to that effect on another thread, based on the venue, magnitude of game, a zillion viewers, I'd rather have more sizzle and showmanship than the the other way and bottom line is he gets it done.

My 'sigh' was wishing it could be me.........

I'll give you that he knew that he would run into the shooter. But at the speed of the play do you think he knew, or seriously expected, the outcome?

My first reaction was flagrant, maybe I changed my mind with the way he helped the guy to his feet after the play? I know that's not the right way to call the came, just making an observation.

Flagrant? You would have thrown out the offender for that foul?

Are you a new official or perhaps not an official at all?

I have no doubt the defender knew. As for helping him up, I, also, can be remorseful.
If you have millions of fans watching, you don't want a label.

A label? Like "cynic"? Wow.

Noted. <i>

No, just stupid. All the drugs I have to take for my liver cancer are clogging my brain. I'll have to read this post at least four times to make sure it makes sense and then put it in word so I can correct the spelling mistakes.

I have some additional syndrome that I can't remember nouns. (Yes, it is a real thing.) From time to time I can't remember names of people I know very well. And then some words are in there but I can't get them out of the filing cabinet of the brain. So I'll use the wrong word from time to time. It's like I'm sitting here right now and can't remember the name of the brain syndrome.

I'll have to call the doctor and ask him.

Are you serious about this?? This isn't some kind of smart-*** comment, is it? If you truly have liver cancer, my thoughts and prayers are with you. That's a serious fight you have on your hands.

I was thinking the very same thing. If that is serious I pray that things work out for the best.

Peace

I'm going out on a limb here and letting everyone know that TSU2457 pm'd me and told me that yes, indeed, he/she is battling liver cancer. So let's all make sure we throw some prayers/positive thoughts out his/her way!!One of our officiating "family" needs them!

My God Bless TSU2457 and his/her family. You will be in my prayers that you can overcome this.

Good luck with that, TSU2457 !

TSU2457 you will be in my family's prayers. I wish you the best.

Good question. I was asking it on behalf of my dad and brother that saw the play while I was cooking something and missed it. I told them I would ask for them to get some opinions. I didn't know either way.

A serious argument can be made for an intentional foul based upon the following which appeared in the rules book two seasons ago. The fouled player was airborne, was attempting a lay-up, and had his leg clipped by an opponent running in from behind. The player attempting to score was certainly in a vulnerable position. The debate will hinge upon whether the contact was excessive or not.

MEN'S AND WOMEN'S COMMITTEE ACTIONS FOR 2006-07 BR-19

Major Concern for Men

Airborne Player/Excessive or Severe Contact. When a player is airborne
attempting a lay-up, any excessive contact by an opponent shall be an
intentional personal foul, even when the opponent is legitimately attempting
to play either the ball or the player. When the contact is severe, a flagrant
personal foul shall be assessed.
The airborne player is in a position of vulnerability and any contact that
is excessive or severe shall be penalized.

Incorrect...he got in front of him, a long way from LGP, but still in front of him. He didn't run into his backside. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be intentional based on that....just getting the facts straight.

While it had a very visible effect, the contact was actually quite minimal. It did catch the shooter at an awkward time but was the contact excessive? I didn't think so. Far more contact is the norm on a lot of layups.