Call The T
 

I don't care what the score is and what game it is, it is not the NBA, slam the ball get a T. I don't care who you are frustrated with...Every player knows you don't do that. I'm disappointed with Hightower after that!

No way I call that. No way.

No kidding
 

I have never seen a ball slammed down and go that high without a T. "But he was mad at himself?" Please.

Good officials don't call a T in that situation. That's just ridiculous.

No way on calling the T in this game.

And another note, Cahill and Corbett worked the championship game last year as well, so these two guys plus Hightower...must be doing something right.

A technical here would go down as one of the worst calls of all time.

Next year when you are reffing a Monday night JV game and T a kid up for doing that guess what he's going to say...


That's all I was trying to say...

So you're living in fear of what some JV kid may or may not say to you next winter?

I completely disagree!!!!!

Peace

Nope..........

Tsk, tsk. Chuck would <b>never</b> say anything as vulgar as that. He would say that he's full of poopoo.

If you live in fear of what a 15 y/o kid is going to say to you, you should probably hang'em up.

What rule means you call the NCAA D1 final different than a NCAA D-III opening weekend game, or apply different principles to a HS JV Game...

THE only thing that changes is YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS the game... Then you are not impartial, and probably blow off contracts for JV games and make the rest of the refs in the world cover your tail.

All I was trying to say is that it establishes a precedent. Slamming the ball down and being stupified for getting a T will happen next year.

Now, I fully understand why it was not called, I just do not agree with it, and apparently I'm only allowed to have an opinion that is agreed upon by the majority of the board...I digress because I'm full of whatever, or stupid or whatever other name we can revert to calling our fellow officials...

Well, he actually said bunny droppings, I amplified for effect.

It's not high school either, Rev. Different philosophy. There's a time and a place, and that was neither.

Puh-leeze, give us all a break.

With all due respect, if he took a swing at a player, are we going to ignore that as well? Or if the coach comes out of the box to chew on a ref? Or if they hang on the rim (oh, i guess they already let that one go).
My beef is that it bleeds down to the lower levels. I understand where rev is coming from: (they can do it in NCAA). And I have no problem telling the 9th grader jerk "they can T them up in the NCAA, too" I just want a little consistency.
I will end with this question: If it was the state championship of your respective state, and the top player did that, would you call it?

Why is the ninth grader a jerk?

per the OP, for slamming the ball.

I like the no "T". The Biggest game in the nation. I like how the crew used common sense officiating in not calling that. C'mon guys would you really call that if you were in the biggest game (state title, ncaa championship, etc). Great job to the crew!!

I've turned back a grand total of 2 assignments in 6 years. I'm sorry if you had to personally cover my tail. That must've been quite an inconvenience. My most humble appologies.

Though one time I did trade a 5:15 JV game for a 3:30 frosh game, so I could get to my daughter's band concert. I still flog myself over that at least weekly.

Oh, and I've turned back a few JV games for V games. I guess that makes me a bad man too.

And I would not have called that T. I'm going to hell. I know it.

I hate to break it to you, expectations change as the levels move up. Sorry, but that is the reality here.

I am not sure I understand this statement.

I do not understand why you are so defensive. I have not read anything that was insulting to you in any way (maybe I overlooked it). But there is a difference between a kid slamming the ball in anger with the officials or another player, then upset with himself because he just missed a big FT. When people start talking about what is automatic, it makes your job harder to do. There should be no automatic, just like a kid that blows out his knee I am not giving him a T for that either. I just wish officials would stop putting "automatics" standards for a bunch of things.

Peace

My goodness. I know one part of this isn't correct, at least for me: I don't schedule JV games as they're too hard to turn back when I get a nonconference varsity game. Did work one this past season, though, as part of a JV/V DH.

A notable part of this situation to me was that Packer made such a big deal about what a wonderful decision it was for the official not to call the T. I didn't figure anybody there ever thought for a second about making the call. Guy who slammed the ball was not even involved in the action immediately before the whistle.

Ok, then don't call the T. What about a delay of game?

A call like that would be the "bunny droppings" that Chuck was talking about, you wascally wabbit.:D

Since my name is being tossed around here, and I was in the chat room with all you bozos, I might as well share my two cents.

Here's my only question to you, RR: why is it a T? What rule is violated by bouncing the ball in frustration after you've missed 2 critical FTs to lose the nat'l championship?

Is it unsporting? IMHO, it's not. It's frustration directed at himself -- not an opponent or an official.

Is it delaying the game, as somebody else mentioned? It was clearly not, as a TO had just been granted.

So what's the rule basis for a T here? I don't think there is one. I know there are officials who think it's an "automatic", but I just don't see why it should be. You say "every player knows you don't do that". Every player also knows it's a foul to get the rebound while you're behind another player. We don't care what the players know about the rules. If you are an official who knows the real rules and understands the game, then you can pass on the "call" without worry.

That's clearly defined in the rules as fighting. Not ignored.

This is a major POE, and will not be ignored; although in a game of this magnitude, some latitude will probably be given.

The NCAA rule is different from FED. NCAA says you can't grasp "in an emphatic manner".

IOW, you're comparing apples to bunny droppings. :)

If something is legal at the NCAA level, it's not the NCAA officials' problem if it bleeds down to the high school kids. It's our job in our HS games to call it, regardless of where it comes from.

I don't care for the idea that you don't make a call because it's the biggest game of the year. Rules don't change because of that. If you make that call in the first or 10th game of the season - then you make it in the NCAA Final. Period.

However, that said - I wouldn't have called the 'T'. I would have gone to get ball and told him to dial it back a little and the message would have been clear.

Preach on, brutha.

I've had this happen before - in football, basketball, baseball. The easiest response is, "Well, this isn't college basketball, is it?"

There is no mention of a ninth grader in the OP.

Yeah, you missed it. It's one of the first 5 or 6 replies.

No T there.

Now, I am surprised no delay warning wasn't given to Dozier for the grabbing the ball out of the net and pointing to his peeps in the crowd.

But, who am I to criticize, I was on the couch.

I thought they called a pretty consistent game to be honest.

The only thing I saw that had an effect on the outome was the inability to make free throws by Memphis in the last 2 minutes. But maybe that is just me.

I wondered about that too. But.....I don't think that KU had anybody OOB anyway waiting to get the ball. If there isn't a KU player waiting for the ball, the game really isn't being delayed.

The only other thing that he mighta got nailed for was the stylin' and profiling', but that wasn't really egregious either imo. He was probably just practicing up for his NBE audition. Show bidness, baby.:D

Come on 2-6...You don't think the 3 by Chalmers had something to do with it....What's that, you were getting another beer at that time...Oh, Ok...My bad ;)

And for what it's worth...I though it was a good call on the no-T...TO was granted, CDR was nowhere near anyone else and obviously upset with himself for missing FTs.

I was questioning the Dorsey DOG when he held the ball but after some thought, if the ball were just bouncing, it might have actually taken the same or longer for the inbounder to get it...Dorsey held it and then tossed to OOB....so I guess that was ok too...

I found this to be a very ironic part of the game......

Memphis was a horrible FT shooting team all year. Yet in the round of 64 they shot remarkably well - this HAD to be a tactic other coaches wanted to use against them - foul em late in the game and send em to the line and we will have a chance. This tactic failed in the previous games....up until the end of the one that mattered most.....

Good grief, Chuck. No one asked for a voice of reason here.

Dan said to tell you to get back into your tree.

shoulda/coulda/woulda
 

Overall, I think they made the right decision. I was once told by Hue Hollins, retired NBA official, be right but don't be dead right. Dead right is by the book and no leway for application, game management, game contorl, game pressence, game awareness. IF he would have called the 'T', I would have ok with it, too. But there are so many factors while you are officiating that somehow & someway not all things are equal. Case in point. I saw a game where a player went down hard the ball was stolen and they went to the other end of the court. The player did not get up, started bleeding, and the coach ran onto the floor before the play was stopped. The officals would have been dead right to call the 'T' for being out of the box while the game is on...but the officials saw this differently -- they just suspended play. NO 'T'. ..Just a thought...

OK, so informal poll...

Take the same situation from last nights game (re: ball slam) on an ordinary night in a varsity high school game. Do you bang him?

What about in a middle school game?

Varsity: maybe, at least a quick chat.
middle school: maybe, at least a quick chat.

Agreed.

They shot decent in the tourney because the collar was never tight. They've had zero experience all year in tight games with the exception of the Tenn. game which they lost, their average margin of victory was 18 points.

The failure to foul in the last 10 seconds was a real blunder. Put 'em on the line for two and you may have ball back with 3-4 seconds left. Poorly played. A much needed timeout would have helped, dejavu from the Tenn. game

I agree, no T here. If a player slams a ball in my direction in response to a call, T. This wasn't that. I've turned my back to this kind of slam plenty a times. But I'd make a note the player "Next you slam it, please catch it for me." It's worked for me.

I have to admit, sitting and watching last night...I said out loud "Why didn't he get stuck with a T?" Maybe it's my lack of big game experience. Maybe it's my lack of DI officiating experience ...

My impression was that the crew looked bad by allowing it...but like someone else pointed out...my butt has been on the sofa for a month now.

On my level...V HS playoff game...that player is going to get stuck. How is that anything but a display of poor sportsmanship?

I think Hue Hollins is the official I love the most. Didn't he call the phantom foul on Scottie Pippen that finally got my Knicks past the Bulls? Then I agree with Hue.

I have a better question - How is it a display of poor sportsmanship??? He was not responding to a call or no-call by the officials. He was frustrated with no one but himself. As some guy named Chuck (or Bhuck or something like that) asked in an earlier post - what rule did he violate? Why is slamming the ball down an automatic T? Why is slamming the ball down automatically unsportsmanlike???

If anyone has this TIVO'ed watch what happens to the ball.......If I remember it correctly, a KU player catches the ball....he then slams the ball down and it goes off his foot into the crowd. Can anyone confirm this?

How do we know that? Maybe that is the case. Maybe someone said something to set him off. I don't buy self-frustration as a license to release it on the court during a game by slamming a ball. JMO.

Another case of not seeing the forest for the trees!!!!!!!

In Chicago, he's known as Hue 'no clue' Hollins. After all these years, his name still evokes the wrath of bull's fans.

It goes a few feet above his head but doesn't go into the crowd. I wasn't sure about this at first when I saw it last night but after talking about it in the chat room and reading the threads here, I am inclined to agree that not calling the T was correct. Billy Packer thought it was the best call of the tournament I think.... :rolleyes:

A large part of me would like to say that they should've stuck him for it. I think displays like that look bad and sends a poor message to younger players, but not calling the T was the correct thing to do in this situation.

Well, there ya go. End of discussion! :cool:

OK, so you are in the "it's an automatic T" camp then, right? So an honest question for you then - Can you supply a rules basis for that??

The point is not if it sends a poor message to other players. That's not the determing factor if you call it or not. I understand what you're commenting on though.

I never said I was in the automatic T camp (your words, not mine), just that I THOUGHT it looked appropriate here...and since you asked:

Player Technical Rule 10-3-6b: Delay the game by such acts as failing, when in posession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when the whistle blows.

Boy, a lot of wiggle room on that one.

...and my guess is that the FED intended it to be that way. I can't cite the NCAA rule...maybe it doesn't exist. This one's just my frame of reference.

Interesting that you would call it based on an act delaying the game rather than an unsporting act.

And since a timeout had just been granted, perhaps he was not delaying the game? I do think it's possible that if there had been a violation or other activity and the official wanted to put the ball right back into play, throwing the ball down and away from the official may have been viewed differently.

I'm calling it based on the violation of the rule cited. That's the way it's written. The context isn't really relevant to me.

Then I'll ask how did he delay the game? In order to violate the rule you cited it has to delay the game.

There was no failure to foul....they (Rose) did foul the dribbler, it just wasn't called.

In the literal sense, the official is delayed from whatever his next action is...reporting, making the ball live by throw in, whatever...while having to fetch a ball that the player spiked. That's part of the game.

In reality, I have to believe the Fed put this rule in to allow officials some latitude in addressing foolish behavior such as this.

If it's not called, it's not a foul. You're an official?

If the fed wants this foolish behavior addressed then why not add a rule: technical foul for slamming the ball to the floor during a dead ball.

Seems simple enough.

And if you're gonna T for delay on the play we're talking about... how often have you T'ed a player who walks with the ball back towards his bench during a timeout?

I like that. Removes any ambiguity...just look how long this thread has gotten discussing it.

Not yet...7 varsity seasons so far. Can't recall ever having that occur.

You've never had a player walk to the bench holding the ball at the start of a timeout? And if he did... you gonna T him up?

If a kid actually says it, tell him that when he gets to play in the NCAA championship game, it won't be called, but here and now, it is.

That's the same scenario I use when a coach thinks that he gets the ball upcourt after a timeout. I tell him that when he gets to coach in the NBA, he can inbound it there.

None come to mind...seems they just drop it where they're standing or toss it to the nearest official. Can't say how I'd react...if I thought he was intentionally trying to be a turd after asking for the ball, I might think about whacking him.

Truthfully, after all this debate...I may be inclined to think twice. Maybe my idea of sporting behavior is too narrow and idealistic. My philosophy has been once you've made it to the varsity level, act accordingly. Ball slamming is an emotional outburst...I just hate to see it.

Doesn't dropping it where they were standing also fit the definition you gave for the T?

I didn't give the definition, the Fed did. I'm just citing the rule I'd apply in this instance. fwiw, I don't view dropping a ball after a whistle the same as slamming it out of frustartion. I think most officials would distiniguish between the two and respond accordingly.

So, you've decided it should be a T and are finding a rule you can use to justify it.

Both are equal violations of the rule you cited - in neither instance did the player "immediately pass the ball to the nearer official."

I only continue this discussion to get to my point (which I should have gotten to much earlier :D) that in my opinion that rule is to be applied to an intentional act of delay - a time a player intentionally throws the ball away from an official or holds the ball to prevent it from being put back in play.

You can find a lot of rules to justify almost any T. That is the reason the rules are ambiguous in most situations. But a kid that barely bounced the ball 10 feet in the air is not a good reason to call a T. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. I think a kid in frustration with themselves is OK. If he was upset with a call or the official or the ball went to the 10th row, then we got something. This particular play, the officials did a good job and left it alone.

Peace

They are exactly the same if you're considering it to be a failure to pass the ball immediately to an official.

I gotta' admit, that one made me chuckle out loud. It's just so gosh darn cute. :) In fact, I think it really should be a word.

I would tend to agree with this as well. If you can look back at the replay, it looked like CDR immediately turned to look at the official (Hightower I believe). Perhaps he was spoken to and apologized immediately. I felt it was handled very well.

No play happens in a vacuum, including this one.

A tech in this situation last night would have been horrendous and would be ALL that the idiot ref-hating (*cough*Gottlieb*cough*) commentators would be talking about today.

Neither, obviously is understanding the entire passage.

The key part is "delay the game." If he didn't "delay the game" than the rest starting with "such acts" is irrelevant.

OK. Now distinguish between a soft dribble, a firm dribble, a hard dribble, and a slam. Hmmmm. Another can of worms just popped open.

As for the rule you're interested in applying, it makes no distinction between dropping it in place and tossing it somewhere else....if neither is where the official is, this rule applies....if you're going to call it by the letter.

Damn worms. Hate 'em.

And THAT is exactly what makes the difference in properly applying most rules.

All they had to do was go TWO for 5 instead of ONE for 5 and Chalmers' shot would only have made it look close.

Wow. I'm flabbergasted by the number of people who want this not to be an automatic T at the HS level.

I will say that if I were working the KU/Memphis game, I wouldn't have called the T either. I don't think it fit that game. That game just IS different. However, agreeing with Billy Packer about anything is enough to make me think twice about my position! :eek:

But on a Friday night at my local HS, there's a very high probability that I'm calling the T. For nothing more than committing an unsporting foul, if you insist on having a rule cited to back it up.

When the removing the jersey rule was added, there were a whole bunch of folks who insisted they didn't need a specific rule to address this. That it was just another sportsmanship issue, and they'd already got a rule to handle that. Same thing with the taunting and baiting rule. I don't need the Fed to add a special rule to take care of bidness.

One of the very first HS camps I went to, the crew let a kid get away with either slamming or kicking the ball (I don't recall which). But I remember the evaluator's rebuke: "That's as close as it gets to automatic. If you won't call that, what will you call?"

And slamming the ball IS as close automatic as it gets. The times that I have not called this, somebody has consistently complained. The times I have called it, nobody has complained. Why? Because anybody who has been around basketball for any length of time knows you don't do that.

I used to consider this an "automatic" but, in my experience, reaction has been the exact opposite. I've been chewed out at camps for calling this a T.

Nowadays, I try to take the complete circumstance into account. Last night's game - probably no T.

I'm also surprised by the number of people who would rather debate the nuances of the rule for calling a T rather than just calling it what it is...An unacceptable behavior for a varsity HS player...worthy of a T, whichever rule you want to use.

A big part of being on this board is determining which rules apply. The point being made on the rule you cited is that it in no way applied to the scenario.

And just so you know, in a HS setting that I work, normally a slam of the ball like that will elicit a T from me. But in the exact scenario as happened Monday, it probably wouldn't.

Exactly what behavior was unacceptable? There seems to be the opinion of some that the very act of slamming the ball to the ground should be punished. Others feel there should be some leeway based upon the game situation.

Let's look at the game situation: Under 1:00, Memphis has the ball and a 2 point lead. Kansas fouls #14 (Douglas-Roberts), #14 for Memphis goes to the line for 2 FT's. #14 misses both FT's, but #2 (Dozier) for Memphis gets the rebound, passes to #23 (Rose), Kansas fouls Rose, and #14 ends up with the ball as his team is granted a TO. #14 then slams the ball to the ground, it bounces in the air to a Kansas player, who then also bounces the ball hard.

Let's recap: Memphis has a 2 point lead, has the ball, has 2 FT's coming up, and has just called a TO. So, why did #14 slam the ball hard? Was it because he was upset with the foul call? Was he showing any disrespect to the officials? Was he taunting the other team? Of course, the answer to these is no; he was simply quite obviously upset with himself for missing those 2 FT's a few moments earlier. So this seems to eliminate the unsporting behavior aspect. The TO had just been granted, so there is no obvious delay in being able to put the ball back in play.

Most of the time when a player slams the ball down, it is in response to getting a foul or violation called on them. That's why the T is called - for the unsporting behavior of the reaction, not the specific act. You will usually see the two happen together, and perhaps that's how people have come to associate the "slam" with the T. However, you will not find "Slam the ball down in a forceful manner" as one of the items listed in Rule 10. There is a subtle difference, and that is why those officials were working that particular game - they know that difference. When I saw the play, my reaction was "Uh, oh...", but as I processed what actually happened, I saw why the officials did not penalize it. The more I think about it, the more I hope I would call it the same way in a high school game.

Well said.
You've also spelled out my thought process through this discussion.

I can respect your opinion, and judging from the poll on this topic 75% of the officials her agree with you. But I guess my viewpoint differs here because I think a HS player has a different standard of behavior than a D1 player in a nationally televised championship game.

It's not about the game venue.

It is about whether or not you judge the act to be an unsporting act. For some of us it clearly was not for the reasons M&M summed up nicely.

And I would respectfully submit that you are missing the point. It doesn't matter that it was nationally televised, or that it was a Championship game, or that it was a "big" game, or that it was an NCAA game...what matters is that the player was NOT demonstrating unsportsmanlike behavior. Frustration is not unsportsmanlike - it's oart of any game. If the method of displaying that frustration is unsportsmanlike, then we penalize it. As has been said several times in this thread - the ball slam was NOT in response to a call or no-call, and was not directed at the officials, and was not a taunt directed at the other team, and did not delay the game...there really is no reason to call a T for this - not even at the HS level.

Uh, oh...I'm thinking like you? :eek:

:D

We have had this discussion before, but this is the difference between a HS official and an official that works a lot of college. The HS official is trying to prove they need to call something, while the college official is usually trained to be a little more restraint and use a little bit of common sense. That is why you see officials spending a lot of time trying to justify this as a foul.

Peace

Very well stated...emphasis added.

I'd offer some of Padgett's meds, but he seems to be doing well and I wouldn't want to take any away from him.

Yeah. That's it. All us HS guys without any common sense :rolleyes:

Jeff, while I wholeheartedly agree with your general principle, I might disagree a little with your wording. I don't think it's strictly a difference between HS and college officials, I think it's a difference between an average official and a great official, no matter the level. There are great HS officials that understand this principle that do not work any college ball. Of course, if you work at the college level, it is probable you already understand these subtle differences.