The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Bulls vs Celtics (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/53000-bulls-vs-celtics.html)

bas2456 Tue Apr 28, 2009 09:13pm
Bulls vs Celtics
 
End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

Second question is that while Miller was trying to get the blood stopped, the announcers were talking about how that if Miller had to come out, the opposing coach would get to choose who shot the free throws. Is this correct? Did anyone else hear this?

Nevadaref Tue Apr 28, 2009 09:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bas2456 (Post 598464)
End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

Second question is that while Miller was trying to get the blood stopped, the announcers were talking about how that if Miller had to come out, the opposing coach would get to choose who shot the free throws. Is this correct? Did anyone else hear this?
Remember that they are using NBA terminology and rules.

Flagrant in the NBA doesn't have the same meaning as flagrant under NCAA and NFHS rules.

Yes, UNDER NBA RULES the fouled player must attempt his FTs in the NBA or he can't participate any further in the contest. If he needs to be replaced, the opposing coach selects someone from the team's bench to attempt the FTs.

DonInKansas Tue Apr 28, 2009 09:18pm
Play at the buzzer to win, he would have had to balled a fist and knocked Miller out to get a flagrant.

bas2456 Tue Apr 28, 2009 09:19pm
Crazy NBA

Nevadaref Tue Apr 28, 2009 09:19pm
In the future, just use this link:http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html

RULE 9, Section II-Shooting of Free Throw
a. The free throw(s) awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the offended player.
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) If the offended player is injured or is ejected from the game and cannot attempt the awarded free throw(s), the opposing coach shall select, from his opponent's bench, the player who will replace the injured player. That player will attempt the free throw(s) and the injured player will not be permitted to re-enter the game. The substitute must remain in the game until the next dead ball.

btaylor64 Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bas2456 (Post 598464)
End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

Second question is that while Miller was trying to get the blood stopped, the announcers were talking about how that if Miller had to come out, the opposing coach would get to choose who shot the free throws. Is this correct? Did anyone else hear this?
The foul was not unnecessary contact therefore no Flagrant. That is what we ask ourselves when assessing a Flagrant Foul penalty 1.

Nevada is right about Miller being injured as were the broadcasters. If Miller would have been unable to shoot his FTs he would not have been allowed to return to the game and the opposing coach would select the shooter from the bench.

Had they called a Flagrant 1 and the player is injured, the coach of the injured player would get to choose from the 4 remaining players on the floor and had it been a Flagrant 2 the coach could choose any player to shoot the FTs.

Raymond Wed Apr 29, 2009 08:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bas2456 (Post 598464)
End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?
I have no problem with it not being deemed a flagrant foul as long as it wouldn't be a flagrant in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters also.

I do believe Dwight Howard should be sitting for Game 6 against Philly.

actuary77 Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:25am
Barkley, Smith comments
 
Not that I consider Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith to be THE voice of reason on anything NBA, but they did raise a very good point (imho) about the whole flagrant vs. non-flagrant issue...

If it were the other way around, i.e. Miller wacking Rondo on the head, the officials would have called that a fragrant automatically.

AGREE OR DISAGREE?

bas2456 Wed Apr 29, 2009 01:49pm
Why would that change things? And would the refs really think about that?

BktBallRef Wed Apr 29, 2009 02:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonInKansas (Post 598467)
Play at the buzzer to win, he would have had to balled a fist and knocked Miller out to get a flagrant.
Why? On a play at the buzzer, whether it's flagrant or not wouldn't matter because the ball isn't going to be awarded for a throw-in after the FTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 598488)
The foul was not unnecessary contact therefore no Flagrant.
I think that's very debatable.

btaylor64 Wed Apr 29, 2009 02:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by actuary77 (Post 598625)
Not that I consider Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith to be THE voice of reason on anything NBA, but they did raise a very good point (imho) about the whole flagrant vs. non-flagrant issue...

If it were the other way around, i.e. Miller wacking Rondo on the head, the officials would have called that a fragrant automatically.

AGREE OR DISAGREE?
I think if Rondo was hit, landed, etc. in the same way then it would be the same. You can't really role reverse, because if you do and Miller is the one swinging at the same speed as Rondo there is going to be a heavier impact against a smaller guy, which in most cases will take rondo to the ground. You just really can't reverse the roles of these players in my opinion cause it would change impact power and all the above.

Raymond Wed Apr 29, 2009 02:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 598708)
I think if Rondo was hit, landed, etc. in the same way then it would be the same. You can't really role reverse, because if you do and Miller is the one swinging at the same speed as Rondo there is going to be a heavier impact against a smaller guy, which in most cases will take rondo to the ground. You just really can't reverse the roles of these players in my opinion cause it would change impact power and all the above.
So essentially the NBA rule only takes in too account impact and not intent? And small players can take free shots at big players?

refguy Wed Apr 29, 2009 02:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef (Post 598691)
Why? On a play at the buzzer, whether it's flagrant or not wouldn't matter because the ball isn't going to be awarded for a throw-in after the FTs.


I think that's very debatable.

Wrong. There was 2.0 seconds remaining after the foul and on a flagrant, Chicago would have gotten the throw-in with a chance to win the game regardless of the results of Miller's free throws.

btaylor64 Wed Apr 29, 2009 03:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 598712)
So essentially the NBA rule only takes in too account impact and not intent? And small players can take free shots at big players?
That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.

ILRef80 Wed Apr 29, 2009 03:05pm
I think it should have been a flagrant. Rondo did not attempt a play on the ball and instead gave Miller a hard smack to the face. In one of my games, I'm deeming that a flagrant. The NBA may have a different definition though.

Raymond Wed Apr 29, 2009 03:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 598718)
That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.
That philosophy is why I've sympathized Shaq from time-to-time. Opponents beat the sh!t out of him all the time when he was in his prime but when he got tired of it and put a hard foul on someone else it became a federal case.

Raymond Thu Apr 30, 2009 01:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 598718)
That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.
Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

bradfordwilkins Thu Apr 30, 2009 01:53pm
Rondo's was certainly a borderline Fragrant 1 -- watching the video on YouTube it certainly looks like the contact was "unnecessary" (the definition of a Flagrant 1 at the Pro Level). The thing is, retroactively there is no value in upgrading it to a Flagrant 1 (no fines until flagrant 2)... and you're certainly not going to suspend someone for a Flagrant 1.

Likewise, Dwight should've been ejected on the spot for an elbow that makes contact above the shoulder, Flagrant 2. I believe the reason he is being suspended is because he was not ejected. If he gets ejected in the game, I think he plays Game 6.

just another ref Thu Apr 30, 2009 02:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBA rules
Section IV—Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player,
with or without the ball, is interpreted
to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul—
penalty (1) will be assessed.

So why is every "Hack-a-Shaq" foul not a flagrant I?

bradfordwilkins Thu Apr 30, 2009 02:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 598988)
So why is every "Hack-a-Shaq" foul not a flagrant I?
Have you tried to guard Shaq? Fouling him to send him to the free-throw line seems necessary to me! lol :-P

fullor30 Thu Apr 30, 2009 02:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 598969)
Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

I agree, I'll preface by saying I'm a bulls fan, yet it was apparent Rondo went for his face.

JR would have called it "taking care of bidness"

btaylor64 Thu Apr 30, 2009 06:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 598969)
Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.
I got to watch the play in its entirety and yeah I can see that being a flagrant 1 and I can also see the wade play being a common foul. Refs miss plays we all know this. They were both 2 plays with a story behind them both.

Do you think within the context of the game a Flagrant 1 should have been assessed on Rondo?

Do you think within the context of the game where Wade had just been fouled hard 2 plays previous with an altercation occurring immediately after, that there should or shouldn't have been a flagrant 1 assessed?

Nevadaref Thu Apr 30, 2009 06:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599067)
I got to watch the play in its entirety and yeah I can see that being a flagrant 1 and I can also see the wade play being a common foul. Refs miss plays we all know this. They were both 2 plays with a story behind them both.
Terrible thought process for officiating. Obviously more of that pro philosophy garbage. What happened to your earlier comment about officials judging the action and not the intent? The "story" behind the play would fall into that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599067)
Do you think within the context of the game a Flagrant 1 should have been assessed on Rondo?
Yep, real officials don't care what the "context" of the game is. They simply get the play right. 1st Q or 4th Q, that's more than a common foul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599067)
Do you think within the context of the game where Wade had just been fouled hard 2 plays previous with an altercation occurring immediately after, that there should or shouldn't have been a flagrant 1 assessed?
Yep, IMO that type of play needs to be penalized as more than a common foul. It's contact directly from behind on a break-away against an airborne and vulnerable player. The risk for injury is high.

However, it seems that the league disagrees with my view as they announced today that they have rescinded the flagrant 1 foul against Wade.

Nevadaref Thu Apr 30, 2009 06:45pm
Rondo up to his cheap tactics again tonight.
He is being a thug, which is too bad because he is a decent player and doesn't need to resort to such. Just got a flagrant 1.
Yet again he was probably lucky to get a lesser penalty than likely deserved.

btaylor64 Thu Apr 30, 2009 07:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599076)
Terrible thought process for officiating. Obviously more of that pro philosophy garbage. What happened to your earlier comment about officials judging the action and not the intent? The "story" behind the play would fall into that.


Yep, real officials don't care what the "context" of the game is. They simply get the play right. 1st Q or 4th Q, that's more than a common foul.

Yep, IMO that type of play needs to be penalized as more than a common foul. It's contact directly from behind on a break-away against an airborne and vulnerable player. The risk for injury is high.

However, it seems that the league disagrees with my view as they announced today that they have rescinded the flagrant 1 foul against Wade.
Im sorry i shouldn't have used the word "story" cause i too, believe the game should be called the same from start to finish. And my comment about judging action and not intent still holds true. if we judged intent on that play its very possible that we give Rondo a Flagrant 1. Obvious pro philosophy garbage?? That "garbage" gets plays right in the 93-97 perecentile if im not mistaken. What other "philosophy" can tout that?

It's as simple as getting the play right, huh? That easy?

you can have opinions... everybody can, but your opinion and mine don't mean anything in regards to the Wade play. The NBA doesn't have "philosophies" we have standards and rules. The rule says in order to assess a Flagrant 1 the contact has to be unnecessary and Wade's contact was not unnecessary he was attempting to make a great defensive play with which he failed to do.

So are you going to assess an intentional foul if this was in a college game? Doesn't the rule say the player has to make an attempt on the ball? if that's the case then that is what Wade did and you would not have a basis for assessing an intentional foul other than your opinion is that the airborne shooter is vulnerable and the chance of injury is high?? I actually think that's a noble thought process and thats why you should absolutely assess a foul, but by rule you're not justified in doing anything else.

Nevadaref Thu Apr 30, 2009 07:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
Im sorry i shouldn't have used the word "story" cause i too, believe the game should be called the same from start to finish.
Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
And my comment about judging action and not intent still holds true.
Agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
if we judged intent on that play its very possible that we give Rondo a Flagrant 1.
Nope, you have it backwards. If only the action of smacking someone directly in the mouth was ajudged, then the play would have been ruled a flagrant 1. It is when intent is brought into it that someone rationalizes the play down to a common foul by saying, "He was just going for the ball."
If you aren't going to officiate intent, then you shouldn't care what he was trying to do, you should observe and penalize WHAT HE DID DO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
Obvious pro philosophy garbage?? That "garbage" gets plays right in the 93-97 perecentile if im not mistaken. What other "philosophy" can tout that?
Yep, it's garbage because you have a league office that tells people to call it this way or that way, which isn't what it says in the rules book. In order to have any meaningful measure of whether or not a play is called correctly, the league would have to actually follow a set of written rules. They don't. They just talk and spin it however they wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
It's as simple as getting the play right, huh? That easy?
Should be. What else is an official striving to do out there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
you can have opinions... everybody can, but your opinion and mine don't mean anything in regards to the Wade play. The NBA doesn't have "philosophies" we have standards and rules. The rule says in order to assess a Flagrant 1 the contact has to be unnecessary and Wade's contact was not unnecessary he was attempting to make a great defensive play with which he failed to do.
This paragraph summarizes why you don't get it.
1. You believe that the NBA follows standards and rules instead of philosophies. We disagree.
2. You don't believe that upending someone from behind and causing him to fall on his backside is unnecessary contact.
3. You state that Wade was "attempting" to make a great defensive play. We already covered the fact that you shouldn't care about what he was trying to do. That would be intent. You stated that intent shouldn't be judged, only the action.
4. You even admit that Wade failed in his attempt. Well, then shouldn't he be properly penalized for this failure? He is the one who took the risk of challenging from a very poor position, so when he wasn't able to make a great play he should pay the heavier penalty. He had the choice to let his opponent go uncontested which would have ensured his safety.
However, what did Wade do? He put the safety of his opponent at risk. That is what the official needs to be basing the decision upon. Nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599082)
So are you going to assess an intentional foul if this was in a college game? Doesn't the rule say the player has to make an attempt on the ball? if that's the case then that is what Wade did and you would not have a basis for assessing an intentional foul other than your opinion is that the airborne shooter is vulnerable and the chance of injury is high?? I actually think that's a noble thought process and thats why you should absolutely assess a foul, but by rule you're not justified in doing anything else.
This is exactly why you need to completely quit working NCAA level games and focus solely on the pro games, if you haven't already. You simply don't know the NCAA rules, and worse, you also don't care to learn them.

A player can definitely still be assessed an intentional personal foul despite making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. All the official has to deem is that the player still caused excessive contact.

Part 1 is the rule basis for deeming the Wade play an intentional personal foul in an NCAA setting.

2009 NCAA Rule
4-29-2
d. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal
foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, may be
purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity of
the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while
playing the ball;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall
also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary.
(See Rule 4-17.1.g)

btaylor64 Thu Apr 30, 2009 08:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599088)
Nope, you have it backwards. If only the action of smacking someone directly in the mouth was ajudged, then the play would have been ruled a flagrant 1. It is when intent is brought into it that someone rationalizes the play down to a common foul by saying, "He was just going for the ball."
If you aren't going to officiate intent, then you shouldn't care what he was trying to do, you should observe and penalize WHAT HE DID DO.
I disagree. To me, if you are reffing intent on this play you are saying "wow he hit him in the face and wasn't making an attempt on the ball!" If you are reffing action then you say, "Was that hit to the head unnecessary and/or excessive".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599088)
Yep, it's garbage because you have a league office that tells people to call it this way or that way, which isn't what it says in the rules book. In order to have any meaningful measure of whether or not a play is called correctly, the league would have to actually follow a set of written rules. They don't. They just talk and spin it however they wish.
This is where you have no clue what you're talking about. Our "league office" is now called the NBA Referee Operations Dept. Which is a seperate entity to David Stern and his league office. For you to say that we don't follow the written rules is a ridiculous statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599088)
Should be. What else is an official striving to do out there?
Well apparently you don't know what it takes to have the complete package as a referee. its not solely about getting plays right. The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599088)
This paragraph summarizes why you don't get it.
1. You believe that the NBA follows standards and rules instead of philosophies. We disagree.
2. You don't believe that upending someone from behind and causing him to fall on his backside is unnecessary contact.
3. You state that Wade was "attempting" to make a great defensive play. We already covered the fact that you shouldn't care about what he was trying to do. That would be intent. You stated that intent shouldn't be judged, only the action.
4. You even admit that Wade failed in his attempt. Well, then shouldn't he be properly penalized for this failure? He is the one who took the risk of challenging from a very poor position, so when he wasn't able to make a great play he should pay the heavier penalty. He had the choice to let his opponent go uncontested which would have ensured his safety.
However, what did Wade do? He put the safety of his opponent at risk. That is what the official needs to be basing the decision upon. Nothing else.
1. I don't "believe" anything. I KNOW it! We have standards and we follow them very strongly.
2. I was perfectly fine with the FF1 at the point and time in the game and in fact you make a very good point and if you came to me during the game and said that exact statement, I would say "you know what Nevada, I agree let's go FF1"
3. What action was he performing then? I don't get how you're not judging the action???
4. I get what your saying about safety, but you are, in fact, penalizing him for his failure and therefore you did protect the shooter best you could... by blowing the whistle for a def. foul.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599088)
This is exactly why you need to completely quit working NCAA level games and focus solely on the pro games, if you haven't already. You simply don't know the NCAA rules, and worse, you also don't care to learn them.

A player can definitely still be assessed an intentional personal foul despite making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. All the official has to deem is that the player still caused excessive contact.

Part 1 is the rule basis for deeming the Wade play an intentional personal foul in an NCAA setting.

2009 NCAA Rule
4-29-2
d. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal
foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, may be
purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity of
the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while
playing the ball;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall
also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary.
(See Rule 4-17.1.g)
So you're saying that this was "excessive" contact. So you are dumping him in the pro game then?? Would you have considered it "excessive" had the off. player landed on his feet?

Well I'll guarantee you this... you quit talking like you know pro rules and standards and ill quit trying to quote college rules. It's not that I didn't KNOW the rule I just didn't know all of it. I don't mind knowing the college rules and in fact I know most of them. I just learned a little more. Is that wrong?

Ch1town Fri May 01, 2009 08:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599067)
The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.

What are you saying, to be successful it takes more than just running up & down the court, blowing the whistle on CC?

btaylor64 Fri May 01, 2009 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town (Post 599161)
What are you saying, to be successful it takes more than just running up & down the court, blowing the whistle on CC?
Are you being sarcastic? I hope so, because yes it takes way more than just running and blowing the whistle.

Ch1town Fri May 01, 2009 12:33pm
I forgot the smiley :D

Amesman Fri May 01, 2009 01:55pm
... now about Game 6, for all the yammering and replays about great shots it's still amazing how much A1 can move his feet / shift pivots, etc. Nothing new, I know, but Pierce in particular near the end of regulation (I think) made a turnaround near the lane on the right side that even had my otherwise mildly interested wife shouting "traveling!"

Sure enough, as the broadcast team gushed about draining an admittedly tough shot in someone's face during multiple replays, it was painfully obviously his pivot was quite, um, mobile. One could tell, too, just by how much his body moved relative to where he started. Brutal.

Raymond Fri May 01, 2009 02:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amesman (Post 599234)
... now about Game 6, for all the yammering and replays about great shots it's still amazing how much A1 can move his feet / shift pivots, etc. Nothing new, I know, but Pierce in particular near the end of regulation (I think) made a turnaround near the lane on the right side that even had my otherwise mildly interested wife shouting "traveling!"

Sure enough, as the broadcast team gushed about draining an admittedly tough shot in someone's face during multiple replays, it was painfully obviously his pivot was quite, um, mobile. One could tell, too, just by how much his body moved relative to where he started. Brutal.
You must never have seen Dominique Wilkins in his prime. :eek:

refguy Fri May 01, 2009 04:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amesman (Post 599234)
... now about Game 6, for all the yammering and replays about great shots it's still amazing how much A1 can move his feet / shift pivots, etc. Nothing new, I know, but Pierce in particular near the end of regulation (I think) made a turnaround near the lane on the right side that even had my otherwise mildly interested wife shouting "traveling!"

Sure enough, as the broadcast team gushed about draining an admittedly tough shot in someone's face during multiple replays, it was painfully obviously his pivot was quite, um, mobile. One could tell, too, just by how much his body moved relative to where he started. Brutal.
The officiating in the entire game was atrocious as they did not allow for advantage disadvantage throughout. It really looked like they were told to put a whistle on every single bit of contact. There were multiple plays at the rim where the defender was in his vertical plane and was called for a foul.

Scrapper1 Fri May 01, 2009 05:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by refguy (Post 599273)
The officiating in the entire game was atrocious as they did not allow for advantage disadvantage throughout. It really looked like they were told to put a whistle on every single bit of contact. There were multiple plays at the rim where the defender was in his vertical plane and was called for a foul.
So NCAA tourney officials suck because they can't stay in their primary, and now NBA playoff officials suck because they can't judge verticality.

WTF is stuck up your butt this week?

refguy Fri May 01, 2009 08:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 599276)
So NCAA tourney officials suck because they can't stay in their primary, and now NBA playoff officials suck because they can't judge verticality.

WTF is stuck up your butt this week?
I never used that inane vocabulary to describe their performance. And there were 3 very high quality officials on that game. In fact, the lowest rated official on the crew had the best game of the 3 imho. I never said those officials were terrible or not qualified. I simply stated my opinion that this particular game was not well officiated from the get-go. I felt like they inserted themselves far too often and were making calls based on previous games in the series and not on what was actually happening. It's no different than any of us working a rivalry game and knowing there is past bad history and calling it very tightly because of that and not letting the players play.

Old_School Fri May 01, 2009 08:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 599276)
So NCAA tourney officials suck because they can't stay in their primary, and now NBA playoff officials suck because they can't judge verticality.

WTF is stuck up your butt this week?
You have to take EVERYTHING that this particular person posts with a grain of salt. If you check out this previous thread, he adamantly advocates that NCAA officials should go out of their primary. This post was typical.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post592114

He can't keep up with his own philosophies. They change with the wind.

Nevadaref Fri May 01, 2009 08:34pm
I'm sure that there's a coach or fanboy forum somewhere that's missing this guy.

refguy Fri May 01, 2009 08:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old_School (Post 599290)
You have to take EVERYTHING that this particular person posts with a grain of salt. If you check out this previous thread, he adamantly advocates that NCAA officials should go out of their primary. This post was typical.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post592114

He can't keep up with his own philosophies. They change with the wind.
This coming from the guy who can't even see contact on that play?!?

refguy Fri May 01, 2009 08:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599291)
I'm sure that there's a coach or fanboy forum somewhere that's missing this guy.
Nevada,

Did you see this game? Do you not agree that there were more missed calls than usual, especially for Crawford?

Nevadaref Fri May 01, 2009 09:05pm
Just the 1st quarter while I was preparing to go out for dinner.

I saw the highlights of the 3 OTs on SportsCenter.

I have only two comments about the officiating.

1. I thought that the guy who was the trail and jumped in between Rondo and Hinrich did a tremendous job of stopping that situation from escalating.

2. I also thought that it was amusing and strange to see Joey Crawford grabbing a Celtics player by the jersey and wrestling him away from one of the Bulls. I make that comment without attempting to pass judgment upon his actions. I know that there are many who advocate never touching players, but there are also some top-notch people who have said that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Fortunately, it worked out well for Crawford and we aren't discussing a player punching him or vice versa today.

btaylor64 Fri May 01, 2009 09:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599296)
Just the 1st quarter while I was preparing to go out for dinner.

I saw the highlights of the 3 OTs on SportsCenter.

I have only two comments about the officiating.

1. I thought that the guy who was the trail and jumped in between Rondo and Hinrich did a tremendous job of stopping that situation from escalating.

2. I also thought that it was amusing and strange to see Joey Crawford grabbing a Celtics player by the jersey and wrestling him away from one of the Bulls. I make that comment without attempting to pass judgment upon his actions. I know that there are many who advocate never touching players, but there are also some top-notch people who have said that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. Fortunately, it worked out well for Crawford and we aren't discussing a player punching him or vice versa today.
I agree with the Crawford comment and "doing what you have to do". In fact we are trained how to deal with these confrontations and "face to face" confrontations. We are taught not to grab arms cause that, then makes a player defenseless and if he gets swung at, he is unable to protect himself. So you either grab jersey or around the waist.

tomegun Fri May 01, 2009 11:41pm
Ben, can you define we?

Pro-Am?
D-League?
Camper?

Nevadaref Sat May 02, 2009 01:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599297)
I agree with the Crawford comment and "doing what you have to do". In fact we are trained how to deal with these confrontations and "face to face" confrontations. We are taught not to grab arms cause that, then makes a player defenseless and if he gets swung at, he is unable to protect himself. So you either grab jersey or around the waist.
I've heard the same thought expressed. I've never found it convincing. The problem with that technique is that it leaves the upset individual still able to punch you while you attempt to restrain him, but at the same time not restrain him. :rolleyes:

amusedofficial Sat May 02, 2009 05:21am
Losing city talk show applauds officials
 
The sports station in Boston actually was handing out compliments to the officials. In a game its team lost.

Cornbread Maxwell, the ex-Celtic who is now a color commentator for radio, was high in his praise of the crew in general and Crawford in particular. He said outright "Joey Crawford took control of that game" and spoke of how the officials drew a line, allowing the teams to play physical without letting the game getting out of hand.

He also made the point that the Hinrich Rondo tussle was well handled to the point where it defused a situation that could have plagued the game going forward, and suggested that the trail originally had a Flagrant 2 on Rondo which was knocked down to a Flagrant 1 after they reviewed the tape -- and that the penalties of a F-1 and a T were enough to put the lid on, while a Flagrant 2 might have resulted in festering hostilities (although he also correctedly noted that Dr. Glenn Rivers ripped Rondo a new one during the game delay which made it clear that the team had to avoid being drawn into incidents that could lead to ejection or disqualification.)

It was rather insightful commentary, given NBE standards,and others on the same program joined in showing appreciation for the officials work which, no matter what our prolific pontificators might think about the crew's work, struck me as quite unusual, especially in the losing city.

I wonder what Obama thought.

btaylor64 Sat May 02, 2009 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599325)
I've heard the same thought expressed. I've never found it convincing. The problem with that technique is that it leaves the upset individual still able to punch you while you attempt to restrain him, but at the same time not restrain him. :rolleyes:
Well thats the decision you have to make. You can either allow them to square off and handle everything afterwards or you can step in and try to avoid ejecting anyone by getting in there so no one throws a punch. Its totally up to your descretion, but most in the league feel like if they can get between the two and remove the "retaliator" not the "instigator" from the frey then things can calm down and order can be restored a lot quicker.

grunewar Sat May 02, 2009 11:12am
Yes, No, Maybe so?
 
I once had an evaluator/trainer tell me that if a fight breaks out in a game it's because we as officials let the game get out of control or missed something we should have caught. While I agree in principle, I told him don't believe this is an absolute. Thoughts?

bas2456 Sat May 02, 2009 09:09pm
There are only 6 eyes to cover 10 players...no way we can see everything. Fights don't always come out of physical play. We don't have bionic ears either.

BktBallRef Sat May 02, 2009 09:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunewar (Post 599351)
I once had an evaluator/trainer tell me that if a fight breaks out in a game it's because we as officials let the game get out of control or missed something we should have caught. While I agree in principle, I told him don't believe this is an absolute. Thoughts?
http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/bs_sign.gif

Nevadaref Sat May 02, 2009 09:34pm
Scoring Mistake
 
To add another strange item to this series there was a scoring mistake on a basket in the first quarter (a 3pt was recorded as only a 2) which was just fixed with 5:44 remaining in the 4th quarter!

:D

Raymond Sun May 03, 2009 09:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599384)
To add another strange item to this series there was a scoring mistake on a basket in the first quarter (a 3pt was recorded as only a 2) which was just fixed with 5:44 remaining in the 4th quarter!

:D
Any word on how the mistake was discovered so long after the play?

AKOFL Sun May 03, 2009 01:03pm
Any thoughts on the double T in the fourth quarter? Didn't seem like alot to me. Maybe there was something going on for the last few possesions.

grunewar Sun May 03, 2009 06:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 599415)
Any word on how the mistake was discovered so long after the play?
While this doesn't exactly answer the question, it is from the NBA.com website:

After three consecutive overtime games, the series went from Odyssey to oddity when an unusual scoring correction helped the Bulls cut the deficit to three points in the fourth quarter.

With 5:44 left in the game, the public address announcer said that because of a "technical error'' Gordon was credited with a 2-pointer instead of a 3-pointer, apparently on his basket with 8:32 left in the first quarter. Officials can use video replay to check whether a shot is from beyond the arc or not, but it is supposed to come at the first break after the basket - not three quarters later.

Gordon's shot had been reviewed at the break that came with 3:37 left in the first, the scoresheet said.

Entire article is at: NBA.com Scoring error brings Bulls closer during timeout

Nevadaref Mon May 04, 2009 07:17am
Good discussion of the Rondo foul this morning on the Mike & Mike show.
Golic says that it definitely should have been called flagrant [he means flagrant 1], Jeff Van Gundy comes on and says no because of when it happened, but that in the 1st or 2nd Q that's flagrant, Dick Vitale says no matter when it's flagrant and the officiating needs to be consistent throughout the game. He agrees with Golic.

Now anyone not named btaylor can stop reading at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599090)
I disagree. To me, if you are reffing intent on this play you are saying "wow he hit him in the face and wasn't making an attempt on the ball!" If you are reffing action then you say, "Was that hit to the head unnecessary and/or excessive".
Nope, you still don't get it. A good official would say, "Wow, he whacked him in the face. It really doesn't matter whether he was going for the ball because he didn't get the ball, he got his face." That's what the action was, and that's what you judge. A good official doesn't care what he was trying or might have been trying to do. He sees what he did and penalizes that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599090)
This is where you have no clue what you're talking about. Our "league office" is now called the NBA Referee Operations Dept. Which is a seperate entity to David Stern and his league office. For you to say that we don't follow the written rules is a ridiculous statement.
...snip...
1. I don't "believe" anything. I KNOW it! We have standards and we follow them very strongly.
Oh please, don't try to big-time. I'm not impressed.

First, when I wrote "league office" I was referring to the mouthpiece of the NBA: Stu Jackson. His title for the NBA is executive vice president of basketball operations, but he is the one who always makes the comments to the press. In this case he said,
"We felt Rondo was making a basketball play and going for the ball after a blown defensive assignment by the Celtic team."
"In terms of the criteria that we use to evaluate a flagrant foul penalty one, generally we like to consider whether or not there was a windup, an appropriate level of impact and a follow-through. And with this foul, we didn't see a windup, nor did he follow through. So for that reason we're not going to upgrade this foul to a flagrant foul penalty one."

I don't agree with him, and think that he is flat-out ignoring the written criteria in his viewing of the play, but that's just my opinion. I'm certainly not alone either as I just posted above. Talk like his is why I have a hard time agreeing that the NBA follows any soft of rules or standards. They seem to do as they please when they please, and then try to justify it with spin later.

Secondly, the leader of the referee ops dept isn't even a referee. He was a military guy. We've discussed that issue on here before.

Lastly, one of the NBA's four group supervisors for referees lives in my state and from time to time I get to chat with him. I've posted this before on this forum. He is very knowledgeable and frank about how they do things officiating-wise in the NBA. So the info that I get comes from a very-well informed source. I'm sure that he KNOWS more than you.

(BTW you never answered tomegun's questions.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599090)
Well apparently you don't know what it takes to have the complete package as a referee. its not solely about getting plays right. The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.
Apples to oranges. I was not talking in the larger sense. I was merely responding to your statement.
In a situation such as occurred, no one cares about the communication skills or the other stuff. When ESPN is showing the replays all that they are discussing is whether the right call was made.
The media never says that they got that call totally wrong, but that's okay because they did a wonderful job of communicating. :rolleyes:
We are solely focusing on accuracy here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599090)
So you're saying that this was "excessive" contact. So you are dumping him in the pro game then?? Would you have considered it "excessive" had the off. player landed on his feet?
a. Yep, that smack was excessive.
b. Nope, it doesn't equate to ejection, but it's not a common foul either. It warrants something more. In NCAA that's called an intentional personal, in NBA it's called flagrant one.
c. If he managed to land on his feet, yet still had blood coming out of his mouth from the whack, you're darn right I would still deem it excessive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 (Post 599090)
Well I'll guarantee you this... you quit talking like you know pro rules and standards and ill quit trying to quote college rules. It's not that I didn't KNOW the rule I just didn't know all of it. I don't mind knowing the college rules and in fact I know most of them. I just learned a little more. Is that wrong?
Terribly wrong. Every time that you take the court for an NCAA game there is the potential for a huge screw up because you have such enormous gaps in your rules knowledge. It's true that most of the time it won't matter because nothing out of the ordinary will come up and you can just call the obvious and be fine. However, you are completely unprepared to handle a difficult and unusual situation when one does arise.
Essentially, you claim to know your ABCs, but acutally don't know the alphabet past C. You can only fool people for so long, eventually it will catch up with you.

btaylor64 Mon May 04, 2009 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 599535)
Good discussion of the Rondo foul this morning on the Mike & Mike show.
Golic says that it definitely should have been called flagrant [he means flagrant 1], Jeff Van Gundy comes on and says no because of when it happened, but that in the 1st or 2nd Q that's flagrant, Dick Vitale says no matter when it's flagrant and the officiating needs to be consistent throughout the game. He agrees with Golic.

Now anyone not named btaylor can stop reading at this point.


Nope, you still don't get it. A good official would say, "Wow, he whacked him in the face. It really doesn't matter whether he was going for the ball because he didn't get the ball, he got his face." That's what the action was, and that's what you judge. A good official doesn't care what he was trying or might have been trying to do. He sees what he did and penalizes that.



Oh please, don't try to big-time. I'm not impressed.

First, when I wrote "league office" I was referring to the mouthpiece of the NBA: Stu Jackson. His title for the NBA is executive vice president of basketball operations, but he is the one who always makes the comments to the press. In this case he said,
"We felt Rondo was making a basketball play and going for the ball after a blown defensive assignment by the Celtic team."
"In terms of the criteria that we use to evaluate a flagrant foul penalty one, generally we like to consider whether or not there was a windup, an appropriate level of impact and a follow-through. And with this foul, we didn't see a windup, nor did he follow through. So for that reason we're not going to upgrade this foul to a flagrant foul penalty one."

I don't agree with him, and think that he is flat-out ignoring the written criteria in his viewing of the play, but that's just my opinion. I'm certainly not alone either as I just posted above. Talk like his is why I have a hard time agreeing that the NBA follows any soft of rules or standards. They seem to do as they please when they please, and then try to justify it with spin later.

Secondly, the leader of the referee ops dept isn't even a referee. He was a military guy. We've discussed that issue on here before.

Lastly, one of the NBA's four group supervisors for referees lives in my state and from time to time I get to chat with him. I've posted this before on this forum. He is very knowledgeable and frank about how they do things officiating-wise in the NBA. So the info that I get comes from a very-well informed source. I'm sure that he KNOWS more than you.

(BTW you never answered tomegun's questions.)




Apples to oranges. I was not talking in the larger sense. I was merely responding to your statement.
In a situation such as occurred, no one cares about the communication skills or the other stuff. When ESPN is showing the replays all that they are discussing is whether the right call was made.
The media never says that they got that call totally wrong, but that's okay because they did a wonderful job of communicating. :rolleyes:
We are solely focusing on accuracy here.


a. Yep, that smack was excessive.
b. Nope, it doesn't equate to ejection, but it's not a common foul either. It warrants something more. In NCAA that's called an intentional personal, in NBA it's called flagrant one.
c. If he managed to land on his feet, yet still had blood coming out of his mouth from the whack, you're darn right I would still deem it excessive.


Terribly wrong. Every time that you take the court for an NCAA game there is the potential for a huge screw up because you have such enormous gaps in your rules knowledge. It's true that most of the time it won't matter because nothing out of the ordinary will come up and you can just call the obvious and be fine. However, you are completely unprepared to handle a difficult and unusual situation when one does arise.
Essentially, you claim to know your ABCs, but acutally don't know the alphabet past C. You can only fool people for so long, eventually it will catch up with you.
Sorry didn't mean to seem like I was big timing you. I don't do that.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1