forum members:

tell me if i am wrong. i have been to numerous camps over the years and of the things that the clinicians emphasize is "see it happen,then make the call." i dont know if any of you were watching, but in the kent state game late, a player from kent was in the act of shooting and had drawn contact from the pitt defender. while in the act the referee blows his whistle and calls jump ball. the kent player continued through the whistle and made the shot. almost if not all of america thought the whistle was for a foul to be called on the pitt player. not the case, mr. stanley reynolds called it a jump ball. clearly it was the wrong call. this is a perfect example of "not" seeing it happen. this is also a perfect example of what guessing during a game will do to an official. you will get embarassed because of the end result. one of the things that i continue to preach to new officials is that, if you guess on plays or if you anticipate things you will eventually get into trouble. hopefully mr. reynolds will learn from this. i know we arent perfect, and i think mr. reynolds is a bigtime official. this is a situation that we can all learn from.

take care,
mightyvol

Unfortunately, none of the camera angles on the replay let you see as much as the official standing right on the baseline (this may come as a shock to some couch potato "rules gurus!").

Looking at the replay, the Kent State player was on his way down before releasing the shot. I'm willing to bet that his pivot foot returned to the floor before getting off the shot, and that's why the held ball was called (which actually benefits Kent State).

You must be good. To take a survey from "all of america" that quickly, you've got serious talent.<p>Until I have the same angle as the official on the floor, I'll reserve my opinions on his judgment of the call. By the way, fans always see fouls, but they rarely see held balls. Funny how that works...

I just watched a few minutes of SportsCenter. I'm appalled at how they had just about every person in Rupp Arena disagree with the held ball call (two/three KS players, KS coach, one Pitt player), but they were silent on the Krysiewski/Duke Sub/Bill Benedict incident!

My two cents worth?
Let that play finish all the way until both players are on the floor, and the ball is bouncing loose.
Then it's obvious you've had a held ball.
However, I'm not criticizing, since I've had dumb calls make their way from my whistle before as well.;)

I may be nitpicking here, but this is not a chat room. We all know how to use the shift key to type and upper case letter (I know, that was a cheap shot), but all lower case letters makes it more difficult to seperate sentences.

1) Who cares what all of Amercia thought. The only thing that matters is that the official got the call correct. And he did. It was a held ball.

2) Due the the twisting of the two players involved, it was a difficult play to read, and the replays were not the best, but from the replays I did see (in slow motion), the Lead official made the correct call, and he had to do it in real time without the aid of instant replay.

3) I will admit that when I saw the original play, I thought that the Pitt player had fouled the Kent State player, but one has to remember that trying to officiate a basketball game on a televsion screen is nonsense. One does not get the good look that the officials really get. The only thing that I really look for when watching a game on television is block/charge fouls caused by guarding/screening. That is the only play you can really have any chance of making a judgement while watching the game on the small screen.

4) I had Pitt in the pool, even though my sister has her MBA from Kent State, and good friend (a former men's asst. at UNLV) who played at Kent State. So, yes I liked the call at the time, but remember after all was said and done, instant replay confirmed once again, that the official made the correct call in real time.

I'm with DrakeM!

:( Due to high winds in my area last night the power kept cutting-off so I gave-up on the TV. If I may ask, what happened?

Read NCAA Men's/Women's R4-S35-A1(b) and A.R. 26(a). The Lead official made the correct call.

I agree with Drake, and have to disagree with Mark DeNucci. I saw the replays, too, and I don't think they prove much of anything. If, and it's a big if b/c you can't see it in any of the replays I saw, the Kent State player returned to the floor before releasing that ball, then yes, it was a good call. That's the only way you can have a held ball, b/c the Pitt player clearly did not prevent the try from being released. Otherwise, the official blew it, in my humble opinion.

When I first saw it, I thought to myself that he'd anticipated contact and blown the whistle. Then when he realized that there really was no significant contact, he had to come out with something. He didn't want to count the bucket and give the free throw, so he came out with the only other call at his disposal, the held ball.

Just my thoughts.

Chuck

DrakeM, Lets give the official the benefit of doubt. Lets assume the official was correct. He saw the shooter come to the floor before the release. Are you saying to wait on that call? The ball was not loose and it went in the basket. So what would you have the official do, wait til the ball goes in and bounces on the floor, then come in and say jump? I guess I just question why you think in that play you would have the official wait. I saw no replay showing the official did or did not make the correct call. So I have to believe the official made the correct call.

At the time I questioned the call as well, but with the various angles and replays I saw it was a good call. However, several questions come to mind....

How many of us in that position would make the same call? I think not many. Honestly, I would have had a no-call, partial block, good basket.

Why couldn't the announcers let it go? They really didn't even propose the possibility that it could be the right call, or even alternatively a n0-call. They had it FOUL all the way, and Kent State was victimized.

Finally, is it me or are these officials reluctant to call anything in the paint in close games under 3 minutes? I've noticed this all Tournament. They'll call cheapos at mid-court, but they seem to disappear down-under. Last night alone we saw this reluctance with Boozer and Knight (2x).
By trying to not become part of the outcome, they are, in fact, becoming part of the outcome.

Anyone??

Read the rules reference in my post just before your post. The official made the correct call.

Bart,
I'm not saying wait until the shot goes in before you call a jump ball. I'm saying (IMO) the only way you can call a jump ball on that play is if BOTH players come back down to the ground and then the ball comes loose, or some other effect of the loose ball.
I've been taught that a play has a beginning, middle and end.
Our challenge is to try and let the play finish before we put air in the whistle.
I've been to camps where I've called jump balls, and had the evaluator (Leon Wood) tell me to let the play come back to the floor, being held. I think in this case that would have prevented this call.
Now again, I'm not criticising the official. He saw what he saw, made the call, and stuck to his guns.
Gutsy call! And if as Chuck says, all those things were
going through his mind as he made the call, DANG! He's good!:D:D

Mark.
You can quote rules all you want.
Sometimes common sense HAS to kick in.
The best officials I know, have the ablility to
balance the two. Great rules knowledge, and the ability
to use common sense when applying them.

Mark, I don't have my NCAA rule book with me. I'm not sure any rule on jump balls addresses the player still in the air for a shot that we can have a jump ball, even when the ball gets released before the shooter comes to the floor. I'm not saying you can't, I just would question the ball being tied up for a jump ball when a player still got the shot off before coming to the floor. Now i (oops, I) do believe it is a tie up when the shooter comes to the floor before the release as what appeared in the Kent St. game. I not questioning the rule, I questioning the judgement of an official who would call a jump ball when the shooter is still in the air.

I would have to say the official did see the shooter come to the floor before the release. If you remember the whistle came after the shooter came down, not when he was in the air. Again i'm (oops I'm) not sure the shooter or the defensive player came to the floor before the release(not that it matter if the Def. player returns to the floor, although we are talking milliseconds) but i will assume the official saw them come to the floor. And if this is the case, don't you think it was the correct call and that is exactly what Leon Wood would have the official call in this play?

I agree.
I've just been looking at the replays and it does appear that he was back down, barely.

Thats it! You just give up and agree, whats up with that? What you loose your nuts? :)

I have only seen the replay a couple of times and I don't have my rulebook handy, so take my comments for what they are worth. I thought it was a bad call, I personally would have probably had a no-call. I feel that many times on this forum, due to the nature of the members, that we are too quick to defend a call no matter what. Just because we disagree with a call, doesn't mean we are bashing the official himself or the officiating community. I am confident that this official is among the elite in the nation, but I think it is possible he had a quick whistle and should have let the play develop a little longer. JMHO.

That's the beautiful thing about tape. It doesn't lie!:sad:
Give up? NEVER!!!!!:p
I would have like to been the fly on the wall in the post game though.:D
(By the way, when you say millisecond, you ain't kidding
brother!);)

Why do you think this was a bad call? I have to assume you believe the lease of the ball was before the shooter returned to the floor. If that is the case then I understand and can appreciate your opinion.

Just so you don't think I'm giving up on this play.
Let me add that I believe the whistle should be held until
the player/s CLEARLY return to the floor.
I do not think the tape shows him CLEARLY returning to the floor. Happy, Bart?:p

Yes. And i might add the replay Does not CLEARLY show the players did NOT return to the floor. So there! :)

Lost in the discussion, is the fact that the Kent State player travelled on his spin move!:p:p
So the jump ball call was merely a makeup call.(for all you conspiracy theorists.);)

DrakeM, thats good! you da man.

"Yes. And i might add the replay Does not CLEARLY show the players did NOT return to the floor."

If a tree falls in the woods, and noone is there to hear it..........:D

Sorry not the same thing. This was a conspiracy. They have the replay to prove the official made the correct call. They never showed the center court camera shot.

You're absolutely correct that the play must return to the ground before calling the held ball. (Similar to the NFL rule, however, none of the replays I saw conclusively showed whether or not the Kent player returned to the ground, but you could see that he was descending from his jump.)

However, I take issue on the 'let the ball come loose before you call it' approach that you seem to be taking. If the player returns to the ground with the ball in his hands, you have a travel (assuming this isn't part of a jump stop-esqe move). If this happens, the loose ball is negated by the dead ball for the travel (also, it looks really weird to call a held ball when no one is touching it!).

yeah, and I have the Grassy Knoll camera shot to prove that
Oswald didn't act alone.:p

So, again you agree with me. It was a conspiracy. Thank You, thank you, thank you, Hold the applause please.

Mark, I disagree. If you have a block at the APEX, and A1 comes back to the ground, how can you have a travel? SHot clearly prevented from being released, palyer returns to the floor, jump ball. (if I'm not reading the situation right, forgive me.)
And when I talk about the loose ball, I'm merely saying that
....
Oh, H*ll, I don't know what I'm saying.:( Just make sure
the play is allowed to finish. In this play if they come back to the ground, even if you wait a second after they do,
(ball loose,whatever) you're not going to get an argument from most players and coaches on the play. (They might argue for a foul, but so what?)

"So, again you agree with me. It was a conspiracy"

Hey. How else does a team like Kent State make it this far?;)

All debate aside, can you all imagine the grief we gonna get from howler-monkeys everytime we call a foul on a shooter or if a shot is blocked? This might be a can of worms. How many times do we expect this call to bite us in the arse on the lower levels???

"Tweet", "Whack", "Throw!":p

K-low,
I don't get bit at the lower levels.
Those imaginary coaches have imaginary teeth.
mick

Aptly stated Mick!!

This has nothing to do with common sense. A.R. 26(a) specifically states that B1 does not have to be in contact with the ball at the time that A1 returns to the court.

For those who do not have the NCAA rules book in front of you, A.R. 26(a) is as follows: A1 goes airborne to attempt a field goal. While A1 is airborne the ball is still in his/her hands, B1 places his/her hands on the ball preventing A1 from releasing the ball. B1 then removes his/her hand from the ball and A1 returns to the court having never released the ball. The ruling is that a held ball has occured as soon as A1 returned to the court. This is what happened in the Pitt-Kent State game.

Going off on a tangent or a rant, whichever you prefer. Some of you will notice I do not use the phrase common sense. It has been my experience in basketball officiating, that every time an official or coach uses the phrase common sense to justify a ruling that is contridictory to the rules and casebook plays it is because that person does not either understand or know the rule involved.

When we, as officials, make ruling, we have to use the rules and casebook plays to determine the correct ruling. Granted, there are times that there is not much help in the rules and casebooks, but that is where logic and experience must be applied to come to a fair solution to the problem.

A good example of how common sense can get us into trouble is the following play:

A1 is dribbling toward his basket. A1 stops his dribble while both feet are off the floor. After he stops his dribble and while still airborne he is fouled by B1. A1 then lands on his right foot, then jumps off that foot, then lands on his left foot, then jumps off that foot and releases the ball on a field goal attempt. Clear cut case of continuous motion. This play was discussed by me, the Bowling Green (Ohio) H.S. boys' varsity coach and two other veteran officials. All three of them told me that now matter what the rules book and casebook said, common sense tells us that A1 was not fouled in the act of shooting. All three of them told me that they really did not care what the rules book and casebook said, that to make that call defies common sense and that coaches do not want that foul called that way. One also has to remember that in Ohio, the coaches determine who officiates regular season varsity (and sometimes jr. varsity) games and all tournament games.

This same coach lost a game because officials he approved used common sense (and not the rules) and reversed a judgement call (and thereby wiping two points off the board), because the officials did not know how to apply the correctable error rule (in this case the correctable error rule did not have anything to to with the play at all).

Just leave common sense out of it. Know the rules, and apply the rules and logic instead.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Going off on a tangent or a rant, whichever you prefer. Some of you will notice I do not use the phrase common sense.

Yup, I've noticed. And that's why I stop reading at precisely the point where you try to convince us that we don't need it. No offense intended, honest, but I think you're out in left field on that particular topic.

Chuck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Quote: Going off on a tangent or a rant, whichever you prefer. Some of you will notice I do not use the phrase common sense. Yup, I've noticed. And that's why I stop reading at precisely the point where you try to convince us that we don't need it. No offense intended, honest, but I think you're out in left field on that particular topic. Chuck

I may be in left field, but the official made the correct call because he knew the rule and A.R. that applied. Besides, its right field where the non-athletes are always put, not left field.

blown call
 

i dont care how many times that i see the replay the official blew the call. i know that you cant see everything on tv, but how in the hell was he able to determine that this was a jump ball? if the kent st player returns to the floor with the ball isnt it a traveling violation. the bottom line here is that the ball was never tied up and the official guessed. i will be the first one to defend an official but in this case i know that he made the wrong call. you can rant and rave all you want to try and convince me that it was the right call, but i think you would be lying to yourself. just remember we are not perfect and situations like this are good for the forum.

take care,
mightyvol

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

I may be in left field, but the official made the correct call because he knew the rule and A.R. that applied.

Mark, I'm not talking about this particular official's call. As I said previously in this thread, I didn't see enough of the replays to have a definite opinion on whether the call was correct or not. What I was talking about was the fact that sometimes a correct ruling is not immediately apparant; and in those difficult situations a little common sense is not the anathema that you sometimes make it out to be.

I'm not talking about your athletic abililty, since I've never met you. I'm talking about your perspective. "Out in left field" is a phrase that dates back to Babe Ruth's playing days. I'll let you try to figure out what it means.

Chuck

Like I said, I've only seen the replay once or twice so haven't had much chance to break it down. I just think of a held ball as preventing the release of the ball and it didn't look that way at first glance. Haven't really looked at the foot returning to the floor, issue.

Re: blown call
 

No, it's not traveling if the defender prevented him from releasing ball.

Re: blown call
 

Read my earlier post. I quoted the NCAA A.R. 26(a). It was a held ball.

I have to jump in here to voice my support for the officials. The correct call was jump ball -- it is clearly evident on the replay, regardless of what the commentators say.

The defensive player had good position with his hands in the air. The offensive player (Kent State) initiated the contact, which was all hand-to-ball.

The NCAA rule for a held ball in this situation (Rule 4 -- Definitions) is that "A held ball occurs when an opponent places his or her hand(s) ... on the ball to prevent an airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try."

There is nothing in the rule that states that the offensive player had to return to the floor. Nor would that be the "common sense" interpretation. In fact, common sense would dictate that as soon as the try was prevented, the held ball should be called.

The only reason that this was a disputed call was because of the way the coaches and commentators reacted.

Did it <I>look like</I> a foul? Yes. At least from the first (far away) camera angle. But when shown from a better angle -- one closer to that of the official making the call -- it is clear that it was certainly not a foul.

I'm all for "common sense" but this play is not even a rules question -- it is a judgement call. There is no way that there was a foul on the play -- it was totally legitimate defense by Pitt. I don't think that you can make a case for a "no call" either because of how long the defender prevented the try from being attempted.

I'm going with the officials (and Mark) on this one.

BTW -- in real time last night, I thought that they blew it, but after the replay I thought that they got it right. Then, a few minutes ago, I went back on my <A HREF="http://www.tivo.com">TiVo</A> to take another look and I have no doubt that the held ball, however unpopular, was the correct call.

For whatever that's worth :)

Brad, as I've said before in this thread, I really don't have much of an opinion. I didn't study the replays. But the thing that makes it difficult for me to accept the application of the above rule is that the shot was not prevented. The Kent State player did get the shot off and it went in. That's why their bench was so upset with the held ball. They really thought they had a good basket and a foul. I think it's a stretch to say that the defender prevented the "airborne player from throwing the ball or attempting a try." Just my opinion.

Chuck

I have never been taught to wait until the offensive player returns to the floor, but I have been told that you should make the call once the try is prevented.

If the officials had no called the play, there is no doubt that the coaches would have been just as upset -- wanting a foul call!

The commentators were way out of line -- going to commercial saying things like "A phantom call goes against Kent State" -- what a bunch of hooey!

One thing that I always try to keep in mind about these plays is that I am the one sitting at home watching them on TV. :)

Brad i have to agree with ChuckElias, the shot was not prevented unless the shooter returned to the floor. The reason to shooter returning to the floor is a issue in this case is because that would mean the shot attempt has ended and therefore it is a prevented shot. i.e. jump ball.

Brad,
I don't think the call was that easy.
I think there is a <u>judgement of control</u> issue that comes into play.
A1 was shooting and B1 got a hand on the ball.
Now, we judge: <li> Did B1 stop the release? <li>Did A1 take the ball back from his original presentation?

In one case we have the held ball.
In the other case we wait for the rest of the play.

mick

I agree with Brad and don't see it any differently than a held ball with both players having both feet on the floor. To say that the shooter shot the ball after it was held is like saying, "Well, if the ref had held his whistle, one of the players would have pulled the ball away." Once the ball is held, it's a jump ball, no matter what happens after that.

<I>Did B1 stop the release?</I>

Absolutely.

<I>Did A1 take the ball back from his original presentation?</I>

No -- not at all... The ball was blocked so hard that it caused A1's arms to move in the direction in which B1 was blocking it. That is why it <I>looked</I> like a foul to the crowd, coaches, etc.

The "shot" at the end was nothing more than A1 throwing the ball up after it had already been blocked (i.e. held ball)

Brad,
I agree with your scenario on <u>that play</u>. Besides, that play is what the official called, and it has gone away.

I was expanding toward the hypothetical and the necessary judgement factor. My suggestion was that the mere placement of the hand on the ball does not necessarily cause the ball to be "automatically" held, based upon the wording of the rule you presented.

If that was so, then every time a slasher goes to the hoop, gets the ball touched and alters his shot, we have a held ball per the words submitted. We must judge whether it's a jump shot or a lay-up.
mick

Mick, I was with you until you said this. I don't get this part. Help.

Sorry, Bart.
No one can read my mind, ... and I'm left-handed to boot.

My attempted implication was that regardless of the action of the shooter (jump shot, or dog shot) we have to judge whether the defender had enough control on (not of) the ball to prevent the release, or only enough to cause the shooter to redirect his shot.
mick

OK I got IT, thanks.

How many times does..........
 

a player get to attempt a shot? If the shot was stopped in the air the first time from being released, then the second time is not releavant.

Great call by the official. The original attempt was stopped. The player was on his way down from being stuffed, and then just threw the ball up in the air, and the ball went in.

After the first action you have nothing. Call what happen first and the rest does not matter.

Just a thought.

Peace

The Ohio Special Olympics State Championship Finals are this weekend in Bowling Green, Ohio, I am Director of Officials, so I have been away from this thread for too many hours and I am starting to have withdrawal symptoms.

Going back to what Brad said in his first post. Brad's post concerning the held ball happens the instant that B1 causes an airborne A1 from releasing the ball for a field goal attempt or pass is correct per NFHS. The NCAA rule is that A1 must return to the floor before the held ball occurs. Until ten years or so ago (Al Battista of Washington, DC, could tell us without looking it up) the NFHS rule was the same as the NCAA rule.

Had the play in question been played under NFHS rules, the held ball would have occured as soon as B1 prevented A1 from releasing the ball.

At the opening games of the tournament today, many of us discussed the play and it was the consensus that the official was correct, but that the NCAA should seriously consider adopting the NFHS rule, making it a held ball immediately. I know that the officials who officiate games under both codes have to remember the line for The Gambler concering their whistle: know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em.

BigDave, I'd like to add a friendly amendment to your post.
Fans always see fouls that are supposedly committed on the players of THEIR team.

Add this to the list of "I just don't get you guys sometimes" threads. I think that sometimes officials (myself included) want so badly to set themselves apart from ignorant fans that we end up putting ourselves on the wrong side of certain discussions.

If I am 'prevented' from doing something, then I do not in fact do that something. If I am prevented from shooting a ball, then I don't shoot the ball. The Kent State player was not prevented from shooting the ball, he was deterred. The ball was initially blocked. But for the try to be 'prevented' per se, the shooting motion would have to have ended with no shot being attempted. This did not happen. The shot was not prevented. It was deterred, it was delayed, but that is all. It was not prevented.

I think the call was missed. That doesn't make the calling official a bad official, and it doesn't make me any better that I think he missed it. We all admit our own fallability as officials, but why is it so hard for some to admit it of others? I appreciate the loyalty that officials show each other, especially when I am the beneficiary. But this is a forum where we're all looking for correct interpretations that will allow us to improve. 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.

jb

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.

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.

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

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

Say hello to my little friend!!
 

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! :)