bad call almost costs kent st.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by jbduke
It seem to me that in this case some are are taking semantic license in coming up with an affirming interpretation simply to continue to go against the grain of the media and average fan.

The you've completely missing the point. Read the play that Mark DeNucci posted. It's directly on point. The play was a held ball, plain and simple. You can argue it as a fan or an official, but it won't matter. It was a held ball.

[jbduke]

And you're completely being a jerk. Maybe I'm the only one, and even if I'm not, i should just stop reading your posts, but i've grown quite weary of your arrogant, condescending responses toward those who disagree with you. In fact, I'm more irritated when I agree with you than when I agree with your contras. Your curtness and lack of tact are totally unnecessary.

I did not personally see any replay showing conclusively that the Kent player returned to the floor with the ball. For the sake of the argument, though, I will concede that if he indeed did return to the floor with the ball, the held ball was the correct call. If I am right and he did not return to the floor with the ball, then Mark's play is not "right on point."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by jbduke
And you're completely being a jerk. Maybe I'm the only one, and even if I'm not, i should just stop reading your posts, but i've grown quite weary of your arrogant, condescending responses toward those who disagree with you. In fact, I'm more irritated when I agree with you than when I agree with your contras. Your curtness and lack of tact are totally unnecessary.

I did not personally see any replay showing conclusively that the Kent player returned to the floor with the ball. For the sake of the argument, though, I will concede that if he indeed did return to the floor with the ball, the held ball was the correct call. If I am right and he did not return to the floor with the ball, then Mark's play is not "right on point."

I think that everybody who has made a posting on this thread will agree, that the replays were inconclusive as to whether the Kent State player had returned to the floor before releasing the ball for a field goal attempt. But the Lead official had a good look at the entire play.

If the Kent State player returned to the court before releasing the ball for a field goal attempt, then a held ball has occured under NCAA rules. If he released the ball for a field goal attempt before returning to the floor then a held ball did not occur under NCAA rules.

NFHS rules state that a held ball occurs as soon as the defender prevents the airborne offensive player from releasing the ball for a pass or a field goal attempt. The NFHS rule used to be exactly the same as the NCAA, but was changed to end some of the confusion that this play and this thread have been discussing. This discussion is not about semantics. It is about what is the correct call for the play involved and other similar plays.

As to the original play. As I said before, the replays were inconclusive, but I would like to make an educated specuation: I believe that he had returned to the court before releasing the ball. Why? The Kent State player appeared to go back down from the high point of his jump quite a bit before releasing the ball, this leads me to believe that the Lead official made the correct call because he was able to see the whole play the the television cameras were not able to see.

As I said in an earlier posting in this thread. Friday evening a group of us were on the Bowling Green State Univ. court and positioned ourselves as close to the position of the participants in the original play and believe you me, that Lead had a good look at the play.

My personal opinion is that the NCAA should change its definition of a held ball to be the same as the NFHS. I think it is a more consistent definition, and makes the official's job a little easier. The NFHS definition is easier for everybody to understand and is easier for the official to administer because there is no time delay in making the call.

And one final note. If you think that BktBallRef is arrogant and condensending, you have never seen me when I get a bee in my bonnet about officials who do not want to follow the rules, casebook plays, and directives of the Rules Committees. We have rules and casebook plays and they are there for a reason: To tell us exactly what to do in a certain circumstance. There are officials both here and elsewhere that will tell you that I will not except a common sense interpretation. Common sense tells me that the person does not know or understand the rule. I expect an official to make the correct ruling because he knows the rule and how to apply it in a logical manner. And right now, dang it, everytime I have tried to whack the bee that is currently in my bonnet, I keep missing the bee and hitting myself in the head. But that is another fairy tale for another time.

[devdog69]

Well, Mark, if he hasn't seen that one he has been hiding in a cave.

[rockyroad]

Aren't ALL refs arrogant and condescending?? I thought that was one of the traits that made for a "good" official!!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by jbduke
And you're completely being a jerk.

Are you this thin-skinned when you're on the floor?

I re-read my reply to you and I don't see anything out of line. It would seem that you're the one that gets defensive when someone disagrees with you. I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing a point, a play, or a rule. If you're not mature enough to understand that and if my posts appear to be arrogant, condescending or irritating to you, then don't read the d@mn things. I'm passionate about what I do and I'm not here to kiss anybody's a$$, not even yours.
There are those that don't like me on this and other boards, but I can't do anything about that. There are people on this board that I respect because their posts have demonstrated that their knowledgable and they know what they're talking about. Then there are those that just pop off at the mouth without ever opening a rule book or, worse yet, pretending that it doesn't exist. I don't know where you fall. But with a reply like the one you posted above, I'm getting a pretty good idea. I guess you thought Boozer was fouled and that Christensen had every right to grab Bruce Benedict as he left the floor, too?


Whew! I feel much better now!