Billy "Giblethead" Packer strikes again. KU vs. Maryland. With Maryland in the lead by 17 late, he says they should keep running and wear Kansas down. Two minutes later, he admonishes them for not setting up and using the clock.

Then, in the last minute when Kansas requested their excessive timeout, he said that Roy Williams wanted to know "who the technical was on" because one of the players who requested it had four fouls and "technicals are personals and he would be gone."

Then, as the Maryland player was shooting the technical, our genius said it would be better if he had some teammates along the lane to simulate a real free throw so he "wouldn't feel so alone out there."

And they pay this guy? Pathetic! :p

Someone should puke on his shoes. Any volunteers?

Okay, okay, I confess!!

I had the chance to puke on Billy Packer's shoes . . . and I didn't.

I just hope that the group here can accept my sincere apology.

Please tell me you at least stared at his pants.

Packer for Moron
 

Nothing to do with officiating or rules but did you here him in the first half when a player left a short, finger-roll type shot way short? "He thought he was closer to the basket!!" Duh.

Actually, I think Packer (and his clones) do the game a great disservice by pretending to know something of the rules of the game. How many times have you been yelled at by some lower level coach who wants you to call an imagined violation or foul because Packer said something about it on TV last week.
I continue to maintain that TV coverage of college and pro sports is the single worst thing to happen to high school sports in my lifetime.

[Edited by Tom Cook on Mar 31st, 2002 at 07:15 AM]

At this point, I was screaming at the TV!! Thank goodness I didn't have anything in my hand! :)

What a moron.

I feel your pain Bsktball Ref, I too was screaming at the T.V. Does anyone need a third for a third grade girls rec tilt next year? I heard Billy Packer might have a spot available in his schedule.

Women's Semi-final
 

Two announcers that have seen this game before Saturday.

Mike "something" (anyway it was a man)and Ann Meyer announcing:

<li>Driving player ran into a retreating defender and PC was called - Mike: " Yes... even though the defender was moving that can still be a player control."

<li>Driving player going into the lane, a little contact and no call - Ann: "There may have been some contact, but the player was so out of control the officials didn't have a call."

<li>Driving player with a defender right on her - Ann: "It looked like she could have drawn the block, but she backed off and never finished."

Again.....
 

What the hell do you expect?

You are dealing with former coaches, players and media people. All of them do not know what a rulebook is. All of them grew up thinking that "over the back" and the a screen must be completely set. And if they do think they know anything, they do not set down and talk to officials to find out. And it does not help that officials never talk to the media about anything. So they probably do not spend anytime getting rulings or real rulebook terms that they can actually use in a telecast.

Maybe this is why officials should be able to talk to the media in some capacity. I think it can help to diffuse the myths and curb the misinformation that comes from these guys. There was a time that I think talking to the media was a bad thing, but we are now in the 24 hours, all the time sports coverage. Sports Radio Talk Shows that run off at the mouth about everything. I think there needs to be some way to discuss rulings with officials, or have someone that represents them be able to talk about what is called. But that would just be a dream that everything could work out. It might be a disaster. But who knows, that is life right?

But to expect anything better from these guys is ridiculous. But I will give Packer and others credit, they do know their X's and O's. But they sure as hell do not know the rules.

Peace

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'm going to take the "D.C. route" here and refuse to comment. I will, however, issue this statement:

"Mark neither confirms nor denies puking on Billy Packer's shoes or staring at Packer's pants. Thank you very much."

I heard that conversation too.
 

I noticed that too. My jaw hit the floor out of laughter.

Peace

The best solution might be to have the NBA or NCAA do those one minute ruling that the NFL does. They show a play and the official describes the proper ruling.

Bart, that may be the best idea. I agree with Rutledge that in a perfect world officials should be given a chance to explain some calls. But, in a press conference situation the questions would keep coming until one came up that the officials didn't remember or the officials would have to say "no more questions" and leave which would look to the Packer crowd like they were ducking questions. It would become a no win situation for the officials.

here's an idea (hence the
 

Let's suggest to CBS (the "Commentator Bullsh*t System") that after each televised game, Billy "Giblethead" Packer be require to hold a news conference where only officials get to ask him questions about his asinine comments?

I'd even pay to get to do that.

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.

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!!

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

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?!?!

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!!

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

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

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.

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.)

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.

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

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."

Foul?
 

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?

I have to admit...
 

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!

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.

Here's the key part of that paragraph:

<i>In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.</i>

I watched the game, and it was one heckuva screen. However, I had no foul on the play. The screen was outside the OU player's field of vision. Did he attempt to stop on contact? That's a judgement call, but I didn't see anything to indicate otherwise. I believe it was a good "no call."

On this play, I have a foul on Price. He literally ran into and over Fife.

Rethinking....
 

As to the no-foul on Price.... Reading that paragraph would suggest a no-call. Price clearly made no attempt to go through Fife. Yeah, the contact was so sever it sent Fife backwards several feet and put him on his backside. I'm not sure the screen was so out of Price's vision, but he certainly wasn't looking.

One thing about that paragraph that has never made sense to me -- in what kind of play does the player with the ball become the screener?

<b>One thing about that paragraph that has never made sense to me -- in what kind of play does the player with the ball become the screener?</b>

I was just discussing that with another official this morning. The best we came up with would be a post player gets the ball at the top of the key and then screens for the guard as he cuts to the basket. Not sure if I've ever seen it, but I reckon it's possible!

Re: Rethinking....
 

Richard,
Picture a high post player with the ball pivoting and picking off the defender of a cutting teammate.
mick

Re: Re: Rethinking....
 

This was brought up in the Women's video this year. They want a foul on the screener( with the ball) IF it is illegal.

I was the one who originally brought up this situation. I have looked at it again (BTW it was White not Price, my fault).
I personnaly would not call a foul at that level (NCAA). However if I was doing anything below high school, I would probably call a foul on White. Just because with those younger age groups, you may try to protect them more.

A couple of years when I was coaching (should I admit that?)
my player was given a foul on a similar play, only problem he was setting the screen. I did not like the call. I think the ref called the foul on the screener because the player who was screened received the worst of the contact.

Jay

I'm with dlref on this one. The exact same play happened in one of the women's games last weekend (I've only been through the tapes once, can't remember at the moment wno it was) and in the replay it was clear that the defender did not see the screen. But in the play cited above, I thought the defender did push or "run through." I'd have called it. But them I'm only up to JV...

Re: Re: Rethinking....
 

You see this quite often in NBA games.

It's kind of strange, but I think very often the player who commits the foul gets the worst of the contact. The worst injury I've ever personally witnessed was during a community college game. A1 is closely guarded by B1. A1 fakes a 3-point attempt. B1 jumps high in the air and toward A1 (who never left the floor). B1 comes down on top of A1, flips upside down and lands on his shoulder, bending his outstretched arm the wrong way. B1 hyperextended his elbow and dislocated his shoulder. It was ugly, and obviously painful. And while the kid's lying there with the trainer, I have to go to the table and report the foul on him. Not a good night.

Chuck

I personally take offense to JRutledge saying that Packer "sure knows his X's and O's" He is a complete moron who is constantly second guessing coaching decisions probably even more than he does the officials. He is a wanna-be. How many time throughout the championship game did he criticize Maryland's gameplan? How many times did you hear him say in the semifinals that "the sooners need to pressure Indiana fullcourt" If he is such a wizard, why not put him in the coaching box? Oh that's right his teams would never get televised because they would suck so bad. The guy is out of touch.

I agree with ericdenn. I have a feeling coaches must sit around and laugh about some of the things Packer comes up with. At least with Bill Raftery and Dick Vitale, they can come across as a little wacky, but their remarks are not as condescending.

Can you spell Facetious? :(

condescend: to assume an air of superiority

When Vitale gives advice to coaches on national television, I think that would feel condescending to me if I was someone like Mike Davis. I don't even remember the specifics, but Vitale kept talking in interviews about advice he had given Davis when they were 7-5 and implied that he was in part responsible for their great run. I have also heard him talk about giving advice to other great coaches like Calvin Sampson and Roy Williams.

Sooner press
 

Actually, I do agree that the Sooners should have pressed a bit. They didn't even try it until the very end. If they had better speed, why not? And with the IU point playing on a weak ankle, why not make him work? The announcers indicated that a press might free up the big guy at the offensive end, but give it a try to see they can hit 'em.

I enjoyed the game, even if my alma mater lost.

How long have you been coaching? I am sure you know the capabilities and intracacies of the OU players much better than Coach Sampson who happens to work with them for hours each day. Give it up. If Sampson thought pressing would have helped them win the game, they would have pressed. It's not like he is listening to all of the critics now and saying, "Damn, I wish I would have thought of that."

ericdenn, you are correct, i know very little about caoching. I don't think i could handle the pressure of coaching. But, I have the benefit of post game analysis. Do you think maybe he wishes he would have Pressed early and often?