Madison prep writer not a fan of 3-person crews
 

http://www.madison.com/wsj/blogs/Pre...438354&ntpid=1

This is from the guy who referred to my intentional foul in an earlier conference game as a flagrant foul.

It is clear this guy sit stupid. You should not have even made him remotely popular. :D

Peace

I cannot tell from the photo, but I think that fan may have spilled his soda. Too bad it is not filmed at actual speed so we could tell.

He's talking about the lady in the red. She would have to be reacting to something that had already happened a second or so earlier, not the defender's hand on the shooter's arm. Either way, why is he shocked that calls are missed even in 3-whistle games? Does he think that NCAA, NAIA, NBA, etc. use 3 referees for sh*ts and giggles? I also love his terminology: "bench side" and "crowd side" referees.

I guess this idiot thinks these "missed" calls would be made if there were only two officials working the game. :sarcasm:

Rich, why don't you invite this moron to work a scrimmage with you next fall so he can see how easy it is?

Give us photographs of the whole game, and we'll get all the calls right.

How long do you suppose this blatant contact, which apparently didn't even affect the shot, lasted?

Sounds like quite a handicap. But maybe he stand smart.


Sorry, couldn't help myself.

"Matt Goins' photo from Thursday night's game isn't the first time a photographer has shown me a missed call, but it might be the most blatant."

Mr. Goins' camera was likely shooting somewhere between 4 and 6.5 frames per second. The shutter was open for only a small fraction of a second. A video may be helpful in showing the result of the contact. With just one frame of reference, while it certainly appears as though a foul could have been called in this situation, it is not possible to determine the duration of the contact or how it affected the shot.

Keep in mind, people in general resist change -- look how infrequently NFHS rules change. I would think that there are very few coaches in states where the 3-man system has been in place for many years -- like Ohio -- who would prefer 2-man because "the foul calls are better."

Ask the same writer the question in five years. While a number of you do not care for Mr. Robert Knight, he did have some interesting things to say about reporters, didn't he?

My thoughts exactly!!

Here ya go smart guy - here's a shirt and a whistle. Come join us and see if you miss anything. Oh yeah, nothing less than 100% correct calls is acceptable!

Why did this guy need someone else to help him cover the game?

We fear the things we dont understand!!!!!

I work this conference and did a pretty big game that was played right before this -- one of the two teams in this game was involved.

I look at that picture and think -- well, I would've held my whistle and seen if the player could play through that contact. It's obvious the contact was momentary and it didn't change the fact that the player scored the bucket. Doesn't mean I wouldn't have called a foul, either -- if the contact forced the player to change the shot, I would've likely called a foul and scored the bucket -- but the picture tells me little. The shooter could've simply blown through the contact and scored.

Yes, these players are physical. This is one of the top conferences in the state and the coaches and fans (and this writer) would be the first person to complain if we had a whistle every time down the floor. It's a balancing act, frankly, and people like this writer have no idea how hard it is to apply the Tower Philosophy in games like this. Sometimes we miss, sure, but call it a lapse in judgment, then -- it's not like we're out of position or we miss a call because we're waiting for someone else to make it.

I worked this conference 2-person. He doesn't really want to go back to that, he just doesn't know it.

Rich,
You certainly know far more about what is expected in that particular conference than I do. However, I would not be waiting with the whistle if I observed what is shown in the picture. To me that kind of contact on the arm of a shooter is a foul at any level at any time. If the player is strong enough to power through it and score anyway, then good for him and he will be getting an opportunity for a three-point play.

Some of that physical play will clean up if the officials demand it by calling such contact. Either the players will adjust and stop making such contact or they will find themselves sitting on the benches next to their coaches.

Remember, they will do what you permit.

JMO.

see if the moron will take a rules test also

You know, there's the official word, and then, there's reality. Again, it's hard to tell how long that contact was for given the quality of high speed photography.

Like I said in my previous post, if contact changes the shot in ANY way, I'm calling a foul. If it forces more effort, forces the kid to alter the angle, timing, etc., sure. I am guessing this would qualify, but I only have one still shot to go by.

I had a Tuesday night game in the conference that week and I personally had four "and one" situations.

Using one still photograph to make sweeping generalizations and an entire column, though? Shoot, the guy just might have missed the call.