Billy Packer for moron of the year award

[rockyroad]

And to make matters worse, Pack-Rat didn't understand why they weren't shooting the free throws right away...his comment was something like"Why are they letting them huddle up with the coaches?" ...the hits just keep on coming!!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Mark thats the best idea i have heard. Only one problem, Pack would start going off and rattling on where no one would be able to understand him.

No, no - I'm not talking about his normal commentary during games, I'm talking about doing this afterward.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jay R
I had to laugh when Jim Nantz described a screen in the 2nd half of the IU-OU game. An IU player set a screen in the backcourt which Price (OU) never saw. Nantz said that the officials didn't see it (idiotic comment of the year) and then he and Packer argued as to wether it was a foul or not. I must admit that Packer was right on that one, he said there was no foul. I think Nantz felt the foul should have been on Price. I still can't believe that Nantz made that comment about not seeing it. What else would the trail have beeen looking at, the pretty girl at courtside?

I wrote down a comment after a similar (same?) play:

"You can have a lot of contact, if the player gains an advantage." What kind of interpretation is that?!?!

[Jay R]

Rainmaker,

It was the same play. I wanted to mention that "comment" in my post but I couldn't remember what Packer had said. He probably wanted to interpret the rule (not that he could) and halfway through, he just stopped because he had no clue what he was saying.

Tonight will be the last time this season when these two "gurus" can enlighten us.

Jay

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jay R
Rainmaker,

It was the same play. I wanted to mention that "comment" in my post but I couldn't remember what Packer had said. He probably wanted to interpret the rule (not that he could) and halfway through, he just stopped because he had no clue what he was saying.

Tonight will be the last time this season when these two "gurus" can enlighten us.

Jay

I replayed the tape about three times because I couldn't believe how bad it was. Even DeNucci should admit that common sense could have helped Packer here. Shoving the guy to the floor would only be called if the shove-er gained no advantage, i.e. fell too? What a giblethead!!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker
What a giblethead!!

Juulie - glad to see you've adopted using the term "giblethead".

I can't wait until the first time you call a coach "Brainiac."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I replayed the tape about three times because I couldn't believe how bad it was. Even DeNucci should admit that common sense could have helped Packer here. Shoving the guy to the floor would only be called if the shove-er gained no advantage, i.e. fell too? What a giblethead!!

Could you please elaborate on the play? I do not recall the play to which you are referring. MTD, Sr., is easier to type than DeNucci.

[Mark Dexter]

Here's one from Jim Nantz.

Last posession of the half, IU has ball, probably about 1/10th second difference between shot and game clock.

His comment? "The shot clock actually ahead of the game clock - shoulda turned it off!"

Only two problems with this:
(1) The shot clock automatically turns off/freezes when there is less than 35 seconds.
(2) The shot clock buzzer clearly sounded before the game horn. (Both well after the shot was released.)

[Jay R]

Mark,

I described the play on an earlier post in this thread. Basically, the PG for Indiana was bringing the ball up the floor and Fyfe (IU) set a screen on the Oklahoma player. The screen was legal but the collision was hard. Jim Nantz said the officials did not see it, then after he said it should have been a foul on the OU player. And Packer mumbled his response about contact and advantage (the one cited by Rainmaker), I have no clue what he was trying to say.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Here's one from Jim Nantz.

Last posession of the half, IU has ball, probably about 1/10th second difference between shot and game clock.

His comment? "The shot clock actually ahead of the game clock - shoulda turned it off!"

Only two problems with this:
(1) The shot clock automatically turns off/freezes when there is less than 35 seconds.
(2) The shot clock buzzer clearly sounded before the game horn. (Both well after the shot was released.)

Alright Dexter, I've already started a new thread to discuss stupid comments in the Championship game!

[rainmaker]

MTD, Sr. --

I usually agree with your hesitation to apply the principles of "common sense" to officiating when the rules clearly define a situation as legal or illegal. And I'm hoping you will agree with me that if Billy Packer (and Jim Nantz, I suppose) would apply even this inadquate type of common sense, it would be a big improvement.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by rainmaker
MTD, Sr. --

I usually agree with your hesitation to apply the principles of "common sense" to officiating when the rules clearly define a situation as legal or illegal. And I'm hoping you will agree with me that if Billy Packer (and Jim Nantz, I suppose) would apply even this inadquate type of common sense, it would be a big improvement.

But Packer and Nance just prove my point about using "common sense." People who know nothing about the subject use "common sense." People who know the subject use logic because knowledge of the subject is required to apply logic. One does not need knowledge of the subject to apply "common sense."

[Richard Ogg]

Originally posted by Jay R
Mark,

I described the play on an earlier post in this thread. Basically, the PG for Indiana was bringing the ball up the floor and Fyfe (IU) set a screen on the Oklahoma player. The screen was legal but the collision was hard. Jim Nantz said the officials did not see it, then after he said it should have been a foul on the OU player. And Packer mumbled his response about contact and advantage (the one cited by Rainmaker), I have no clue what he was trying to say.

I remember that play. Price ran into Fyfe and flatened him. Price also fell down a couple of steps later, probably from disorientation caused by his concussion! (Just kidding!!) My guess is that Packer observed Price fall and seeing that he gained no advantage, Packer developed his "analysis" of the play.

In my game that would be a foul on Price, but then I work some HS varsity; I'm no where close to college level. Is the concensus here that no whistle was appropriate? Would you agree if the play were HS?

[Indy_Ref]

I have a foul on that play! To me, it's as plan as day. If someone here on this board does NOT have a foul on that play, please explain to us WHY you don't!

Thanks!

[devdog69]

I didn't see the play, was listening on radio, but there are times when a legal screen can result in very hard contact and if the screened player does nothing illegal such as pushing through the contact, I wouldn't call it a foul. You have nothing illegal by the screener, nothing illegal by the screened player. Check out the comment on Page 63 of the NFHS rulebook, namely the last paragraph on the page.