You got to know the rules...
 

...and according to the rules you have to pick up a rolling inbounded ball before 5 seconds to avoid a violation.

Just sayin'

wtf has he talking about there. I'm semi-glad they didn't call that carrying either on the last reg play

Good Old Days ...
 

Yes. Twenty-years ago.

http://www.antiquemystique.com/images/7733_jpg.jpg

I almost completely flipped out when Packer said that about the 5 sec. count...what really got me mad though was Nance agreed with him.

Why are you "semi-glad?" I thought that was a pretty blatent carry and it definitely created an advantage...I think this might go into the category of "we haven't called any border-line carries the whole game so we're certainly not calling one under 10 seconds in the National Championship game."

What happened to letting the players determine the outcome of the game? They let the carry go, big deal. They also let CDR slam the ball to the floor and allowed it to go 15 feet in the air with Hightower staring straight at him. Any other circumstance besides the NC game that's an automatic T. I have no problems with the officiating in the game.

Yeah - there's a new development. :rolleyes:

The best comment was regarding going to OT...something like:

"This Kansas team knows about OT games...It was the 1957 NCAA Championship that they played an OT Game"

SAY WHAT????

I'm not even sure these kids' DADS knew about that game!

Dude is a tool....

Good grief. I'm not saying whether they should have called the carry or the T, as I didn't see the game. However, from the descriptions of the bounce, I don't understand a T call. It has nothing to do with this coach/fan-speak, "let the players decide the game." What happened to it is it's a stupid concept that high level officials laugh at.

The players do determine the outcome of a game. They commit the violations and fouls. The officials just call those violations and fouls. If they don't call 'em, then they <b>aren't</b> violations or fouls.

"Let the players decide the outcome of the game" is a phrase used by coaches and fanboys. Translated, it means "don't call anything on my team, just my opponents".

Did you guys see that Dickie Vitalis is being inducted into the basketball Hall Of Fame? I can't wait for Billy Pickle-packer to be inducted into the basketball Hall Of Not Knowing The Rules. He would be a founding member.

And why should that be a T? There is no rule in the be about slamming the ball down. However, there is a rule about disrespecting an official or disagreeing with a call. THAT is what slamming the ball down is about, 99.9% of the time. In this specific case, I think KU was called for a foul and Memphis was pumped up and he reacted as such...or it was some other situation...not a disagreement with a call. Could it have been called? It could have....and wouldn't have been "wrong". But, would it have been the right call...probably not what the rules were intended to address. When's the last time you've seen a T called at the end of the game when a player heaves the ball into the air as time is about to expire....not really much different.

Wow........how could you miss the game? Work, family stuff?

Don't rub it in. :)
I commute about 2 1/2 hours a day, so try to spend time with the kids when I'm home. It's a sacrifice I don't intend to have to make next year. :)

You can watch the game on your computer at ncaasports.com as it will be archived for about the next twenty days.

I'm glad they cut down on the ads even though there were still too many. I hope CBS got ripped for their earlier games because the amounts of breaks was absurd.

On a lesser note, I have a twelve year old son who knows every player on every team, every coach and even the nuances of a Steve Welmer. I made the mistake of letting a friend come over to watch the game last night and he yakked the whole time, much of it nothing about basketball. My son and I have been to final fours, World Series, All star games etc. and we sit and WATCH the game. Any dialogue we have is involving the game itself. So when my friend during the last two minutes asks 'Who's that big guy who plays on North Carolina"? My son almost puked, I ruined our 'mens club' night. Next year, just him and I.

I applaud you for being a Dad first. You got it right.

I semi-chuckled to myself...did anybody else hear it this way....

Packer started to say something about the five second count while the ball was rolling, then stopped in mid-sentence. Nantz then chimed in about a possible violation, then Packer spouted off about the five second count....he had paused like he wasn't quite sure, then when Nantz said something, Packer jumped in with his bluster.......

People can "rip" them all they want. CBS contracted to pay the NCAA so much to broadcast the games and they will sell an amount of ad space so as to make a profit. As long as the ratings hit certain numbers, this is how it will be in the future. I doubt the ratings will suffer because people think there's too many ads. Either there will be enough ads to make a profit, or no one will carry the games because they're not going to do it at a loss.

I think over the years, the public has developed a kind of "entitlement mentality" toward certain things. There's no "inherent right" to see sports on television. This is still a capitalistic society, thank goodness.

"The business of America is business".

OK - I'll get off my soapbox for now. :)

Mark, this ranks with your best posts ever. Well said.

Nah, it was serious, topical, and otherwise a worthy contribution to the forum.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in him. ;)

You're getting rid of the kids????:eek: :eek: :eek:

I thought he could use some encouragement.

Hadn't thought about it, but for the right price....

My wife saw this post, then looked at me and said, "OK - who are you and what have you done with my husband?" :p

This is still a capitalistic society, after all! :)

And I am a capitalist pig. Not very good at it, but that's another story.

Hey - I found your pic on the web. I like the tie. Is that one of those Chinese ones from Wal-Mart? :D

http://mwcnews.net/images/stories/MW...talist-Pig.jpg

Another Myth Bites The Dust ...
 

Amen.

Officials do not make calls that decide the outcome of a game. Players commit fouls and violations; officials view those infractions, judge the action, and then apply the rules of the game to what they had viewed. The rules then determine the penalty. Officials are on the court to be the only unbiased arbiters of the game. Officials are not concerned with who wins or loses, but only fairness and safety. Everyone else in that gym cares about winning, and therefore cannot look at the game objectively.

Why ???
 

What rule has been broken here to even consider calling a technical foul? I believe that a player can throw a live ball into the air as high as he, or she, can without being called for a violation, or a foul.

BillyMac, you've given me a great idea for our local kids rec league. Next season, before each game, I'm going to have the two officials stand in front of the benches and address the teams and the spectators by announcing, "Everyone who cares which team wins this game raise your hand. Thanks. Please note that my partner and I were the only two people in the gym who didn't raise a hand. Remember that while the game is being played. Thank you."

Actually, I may really do that - I'm not kidding.

I'm Also Not Kidding ...
 

I don't do the following every game, maybe a couple of times a season, especially before some of my big "rivalry" games:

Pregame meeting with coaches and captains, as the referee:
"Coaches, are you players properly equipped and do they know how to wear their uniforms properly? Coaches, and captains, my partner and I are going to emphasis good sportsmanship tonight. Look around the gym. The players, coaches, cheerleaders, and fans, have something in common. They all want one of the teams to win. Except me and my partner. We're the only ones in the gym who don't care who wins tonight, so we're going to try to be as unbiased in our calls tonight as we can. If we make any mistakes tonight, it will not be because we want one team, or the other, to win the game. Please remember this during the game. Partner, got anything to add? Coaches, and captains, got any questions? Let's all have fun tonight.

I have an idea.

Why don't you just tell your officials to work hard & do their absolute best & not worry about fans?

on the tv ad thing briefly. I was once living with two friends from Europe and they couldn't believe the amount of ads during a football game and during tv shows. They just gave up watching American tv. Used to soccer I suppose.

And I have the ability to do as I usually do.....set the PVR to record the game and start watching it about 1/2 way through....skipping all the commercials!! They have the right to put the ads in the show just as much as I have the right to not watch them. :D

Ultimately, I know that this viewing habit (when multiplied across millions) will have the effect of lowering the value per minute of commercial time but that is not my concern.

socal I think we're talking about different possible carrying violations. I was referring to the crossover in the b\c, I agree that Rose was all over the dribbler in the f\c. Good job by the official to realize that Kansas wasn't disadvantaged by contact and allow the play to develop. I believe Calipari said the plan was to foul but they weren't able to foul before the pass to Chalmers.

Because it's so much fun embarrassing a gym full of parents. DUH! :cool:

Most of my wardrobe comes from Walmart, thank you.

It will also have the effect of removing any profit from the business of broadcasting sports on TV...which will ultimately lead to it's disappearance.

If anything, the value per minute of sports programming should be up relative to overall programming, as people are much more likely to watch sports live as opposed to other programming. It's the sitcoms and reality TV that are most impacted by the TIVO craze (in which I'm happy to participate).

Sports programming won't go away - but expect to see more and more advertising injected directly into the broadcast, rather than in traditional commercials. That means superimposed images, more quick spots by the announcers, etc. Pretty soon we'll probably have "This travel brought to you by Coca-Cola!" :D

It's hard to make a case for higher value of ANY programming if advertisers know that commercials are not being seen. That's what "zapping" the commercials is doing...makes no difference if it's live sports or sitcoms or news programming for that matter.

Your point is valid about more eyeballs being drawn to sports...but that doesn't help me if I'm trying to sell Chevy trucks and people are whipping past my message. Product placement will increase as you described, but tests show that they're no where near as effective as 30 second commercials.

Bottom line...watch the commercials...they're the reason the network is able to broadcast the game.

(off my soapbox now...back to your regularly scheduled thread)

I don't know where we got so off-topic :D, but while I agree with your points overall, TV isn't going away...and if the "zapping" of commercials happens at a higher rate in sitcoms than in sports (which it does), then the value (to advertisers) of sports is going to be greater relative to the value of sitcoms.

That doesn't mean the overall value of television advertising isn't going to decrease - it probably is - but we shouldn't worry about zapping the commercials. It's a fact of life now and they aren't going to stop showing sports...in fact, I'll argue there will be a higher frequency of live television because it's less likely to be zapped.

This is fun...

Or "This 'over-the-back' brought to you by Viagra." :p

I was afraid you would say that. Oh well.. :shrug:


This 3 second call brought to you by viagra :p

Maybe not watching the commercials will simply lower the amount the network is willing to pay for the games. I doubt the NCAA tournament (or the NFL, or MLB, or even the NHL) will disappear from TV, even if they get paid less for the rights.

I heard that Monday Night Football was a continuous money-loser for ABC in terms of what they could sell the ad time for. But it was incredibly valuable in promoting the rest of the network's programming and building an audience for other ABC shows, and that's what made it worth the rights fees. Is that anywhere close to being true?

Actually, here's my point. In that league, we try to achieve a sportsmanship level of 100%. If we can get the crowd to not yell at the refs regarding calls, it has that much more of a positive impact on the players. That's why we are "quick on the trigger" to admonish and even eject unruly spectators. The structure of this league mandates the following:

1) kids having fun
2) player safety
3) sportsmanship
4) respect for authority
5) improving skills

Parents yelling at refs is in conflict with numbers 3 and 4 and is not tolerated. BTW - the motto of the league is "Do Sports, Not Drugs". This league is for boys and girls in grades 3-12.

Well this is certainly different than "Because it's so much fun embarrassing a gym full of parents"... but I guess I still don't get why you would need to have the refs do their show of hands thingy prior to every game.

FWIW IMO if you want to be treated with respect as an authority then you have to treat those you have authority over with respect.

It may cause the broadcasting to rebalance the ad/program ratio so that it is not as annoying to watch. (The ads per hour ratio has gone up in the last couple of decades). Once it gets to a tolerable level, the motivation to skip them all decreases. Once there are fewer, those will be more valuable.

INteresting fact on this:

(from http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/resear...broadcast.html)

For many years, most large TV stations and the major networks subscribed to the Code of Good Practices of the National Association of Broadcasting, which established limits on the number of commercial minutes that could be telecast each hour. The limits were voluntary but widely followed: 9 1/2 minutes of commercials during primetime; higher amounts during other times of night and day. In 1992, however, the guidelines were ruled a violation of Federal antitrust law. Throughout the industry, most pledged to continue the limits - but gradually that eroded, as networks added more ad time. Prime time today has an average of 15 minutes of ads per hour. The FCC regulates advertising only during children's programming: 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends, 12 minutes/hour on weekdays.

Someone has to be Mr. Grammar Guy on this one.

What? No extra credit for using EFFECT instaed of AFFECT?

Dan - have you ever worked a 6th grade game, or lower? The parents have absolutely no respect for the officials (OK - some do, but a lot don't) no matter how you treat them. Telling them ahead of time that poor sportsmanship will not be tolerated and then following through on that is the only way to get respect. It's even worse in the young kids "competitive" leagues. Every time you make a call against Little Johnny, you've just ruined his chances for that D1 scholarship! Don't believe me? Just ask his mom. Oh wait - you don't have to because she just screamed it at you - twelve times!

When we get past instaed we will work on the effect/affect thing
;)

And also using periods at the end of sentences. :rolleyes:

And not beginning sentences with conjunctions. :eek:

DOH!

And is acceptable. Also, when posting replies to threads, we tend to speak in phrases rather than complete sentences, at least I do, again acceptable......

I think the point that was being made is who cares what parents think. I know I do not and never will. And if that is not enough, then that is the problem with youth basketball. And that is why you get a lot of officials that will not work that level.

Peace

It's not a matter of how they think, it's a matter of the example they set for the kids. I am a firm believer in the value of youth sports so that's why I devote so much time and effort to this organization. The kids are more important than the parents so the point is to make sure the parents don't negatively impact the kids.

Yes - it's hard to get experienced officials to work these games, but we do get a few. That's one reason we train about 5 or 6 new HS kids each season to officiate. I make it a point to make sure the officials take as little crap as possible. We pay pretty decent for a kids rec league ($22-$25 for experienced officials and they usually work 3 games each Sat. - the games are short) and we have a big pizza party at the end of the season.

No Mark, my very first game was Georgetown at Syracuse. I'm pretty well connected.

:rolleyes:

OK I go that out of my system... and it's still a pretty stupid question.

Actually, my first game was an intramural at the Springfield YMCA. There were no spectators, just the farmer who provided the peach baskets. :p

Hey I'm in good company then.

btw... we are talking about Dee and not you, right Jeff? :p )

I agree that it is about setting an example. But the fact that you have to make a proclamation to me is why there is a problem.

Younger officials do not know any better. They work because that is what we veterans tell them to. Then when they get tired of getting yelled at or being called names and being mistreated, many of them stop working it or move on to other things. I agree that it is with good intentions, but when and if they ever decide to move to the real world, those type of actions are not likely to be apart of their officiating experience. I think that is the point ultimately Dan was trying to make.

Peace

What I like about your approach, Mark, is not what it does or doesn't do for the officials (I'm sure your training program already addresses that they shouldn't care what parent thing), but rather what it hopefully does for some of those parents.

My experience with lower-level games is that "yelling parents" come in two types. One is the ex-athlete dad who thinks 11 year old Kathy should be on her way to a college scholarship. There's not much to be done about this guy other than ignore him or have game management deal with him if necessary.

The other type is the one I hope you have some impact on - it's the mother or father who never played him/herself, but starts on the "yelling and screaming" train early because they see the other type of parent when they come to the games. Hopefully you're process helps some of these types realize that it's not the best way to enjoy the game and they'll carry that attitude on as Jimmy or Suzie grows into Jr. High and High School ball.

Whether it works or not, I have no idea, but as a fan of good sportsmanship, I appreciate your efforts.

Yeah that's about it. They can be Skippy Weaselpants enjoying how clever they are with the volunteer coaches and the parents of the 8 year old players.

Or they can take control, be a genuinely mature authority figure and prime themselves for something else.

Not that there's anything wrong with being Skippy Weaselpants. But really, how much fun can it be after the first few dozen times.