Interesting T

[JRutledge]

I could not see the video very well. I do know all three officials that were listed on the game. One of them is a State Final Official. I could not tell what was called just by looking at the video. I am wondering if the T was for something else.

That being said, why would this kid be in the game in the first place? We can debate over the call, but those decisions are final. The state does not come in and change judgment calls that are supported completely by rule. If hanging on the rim is what was ruled, that is what was ruled. He would not have been ejected if he did not get another T earlier in the game. Sounds to me like the coach and fans want to get bailed out. There is already enough of that going around.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I could not tell what was called just by looking at the video. I am wondering if the T was for something else.

That's what I was wondering - did the kid yell something during the dunk? Was there any taunting involved? Perhaps the officials had seen or heard something earlier that made them think this was an attempt to "rub it in" (see earlier comments about why this player was still in the game at that point). There are many times T's are given as a result of ABS - Accumulated Bull Sh!t - and the final spoken words by themselves may not be considered "T-worthy" on their own, but would be when taken in the entire context.

How come the coaching staff doesn't mention watching the entire pushing incident from the 1st half frame-by-frame?

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That's what I was wondering - did the kid yell something during the dunk? Was there any taunting involved? Perhaps the officials had seen or heard something earlier that made them think this was an attempt to "rub it in" (see earlier comments about why this player was still in the game at that point). There are many times T's are given as a result of ABS - Accumulated Bull Sh!t - and the final spoken words by themselves may not be considered "T-worthy" on their own, but would be when taken in the entire context.

Was wondering the same thing but thought I read somewhere that the Trail called the T.

Interestingly, it seems like none of the newspapers have actually found out (or at least printed) any of the officials' names. Remember we had a thread several weeks ago that broached this subject as I recall, though it seems it was less controversial and an official WAS named in print.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Was wondering the same thing but thought I read somewhere that the Trail called the T.

Interestingly, it seems like none of the newspapers have actually found out (or at least printed) any of the officials' names. Remember we had a thread several weeks ago that broached this subject as I recall, though it seems it was less controversial and an official WAS named in print.

The officials had to write a Special Report for the ejection. I bet there is more to the issue than we all know and what was reported. It is very possible that there was more to this than hanging on the rim. Then again this is why you cannot trust the media for the entire story. There probably are more things to this than reported. Then again what else is new.

Peace

[mutantducky]

Yeah, there could be something else like taunting. Maybe they had warned him before because just from the video there is no way that should have been called a T. (by that I mean the dunk)

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I could not see the video very well. I do know all three officials that were listed on the game. One of them is a State Final Official. I could not tell what was called just by looking at the video. I am wondering if the T was for something else.

That being said, why would this kid be in the game in the first place? We can debate over the call, but those decisions are final. The state does not come in and change judgment calls that are supported completely by rule. If hanging on the rim is what was ruled, that is what was ruled. He would not have been ejected if he did not get another T earlier in the game. Sounds to me like the coach and fans want to get bailed out. There is already enough of that going around.

Peace

Not so fast..............


Richmond cleared to play vs. Z-B :: REGIONAL SPORTS :: YourSeason

[johnnyg08]

if there's any truth to what the dad did, the Illinois association should stick by the officials and rule accordingly...if it was unsportsmanlike, you're sitting out.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

if there's any truth to what the dad did, the Illinois association should stick by the officials and rule accordingly...if it was unsportsmanlike, you're sitting out.

It was ruled it wasn't unsportsmanlike, that's the point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I could not see the video very well. I do know all three officials that were listed on the game. One of them is a State Final Official. I could not tell what was called just by looking at the video. I am wondering if the T was for something else.

That being said, why would this kid be in the game in the first place? We can debate over the call, but those decisions are final. The state does not come in and change judgment calls that are supported completely by rule. If hanging on the rim is what was ruled, that is what was ruled. He would not have been ejected if he did not get another T earlier in the game. Sounds to me like the coach and fans want to get bailed out. There is already enough of that going around.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All ejections are final. If the rules are followed and a judgment is made, the decisions are final. No going back and changing those decisions. And as far as I know based on what was said before by the IHSA, they support their officials 100% in these situations.

Originally Posted by fullor30

Not so fast..............


Richmond cleared to play vs. Z-B :: REGIONAL SPORTS :: YourSeason

So how does that shoe leather taste, Rut? Would you like some mustard?

I'm not surprised at all that the state overturned that ejection or that what Rut wrote has now been proven to be untrue.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So how does that shoe leather taste, Rut? Would you like some mustard?

I'm not surprised at all that the state overturned that ejection or that what Rut wrote has now been proven to be untrue.

First of all that is the exact words that the IHSA the likes of the Executive Director has said multiple times. I did not pull that out of thin air or assume that I knew the answer. I actually talk to people in those positions and they know me by name.

Secondly, unlike you, I do not make statements based on only what I think; I make statements based on what I know. Just like you posted what you think a supervisor thinks, but obviously many of the things you cry about say never change. Players are still coming out onto the NCAA games with long sleeves and the official you hate the most is working the most prized assignments by a person you say has no integrity.

I do not see this as me being wrong as opposed to the IHSA went against their own words. And considering I bet not a single person here can think of another situation where the IHSA reversed a decision based on a judgment of the rule, I stand by my words instead with the fact that this is my name and I have more credibility saying what I am saying than using a fake azz name with a state and no one knows who you are.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see this as me being wrong

Everyone else does.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Everyone else does.

Count me out.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Count me out.

Ok.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Secondly, unlike you, I do not make statements based on only what I think; I make statements based on what I know. Just like you posted what you think a supervisor thinks, but obviously many of the things you cry about say never change. Players are still coming out onto the NCAA games with long sleeves and the official you hate the most is working the most prized assignments by a person you say has no integrity.

Just like you knew that those decisions were final, and that there's no going back and changing those decisions?

You thought you knew what they were going to do, but you didn't really know seeing that they did the opposite of what you said.

[Adam]

Rut based his opinion on past IHSA actions (backing the officials.) Blaming him for being wrong on this is just juvenile.

Question: Is it possible the official who made the call expressed to the IHSA that he'd like to have it back?