The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 07:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,010
And the third guy....

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
Well then lets all do this, let us all try to convince the SEC or Big East to let any three of us work this game next year, and if the same situation happens, see if any of us as a crew has the guts to do what in some people's minds should have been done.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. However, I am going to side with this officiating crew before anything else.

Oh "icallfouls", I would be shocked if this crew faced penalties for the way the handled that situation. If they had not been calling fouls early, and this happened, then I might agree with you. But, this crew came out putting air in the whistle early and often, thus I do not think they will face penalties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by icallfouls View Post
johnsandlin

Please open your mind. I only said consequences. As far as we know it could be something as simple as double secret probation. But for sure there will be some discussion on the matter.

In most conferences, the assignors policy is that for any T foul called by the crew, the calling official is to inform the assignor directly within a certain time frame so that the assignor can have time to review it as necessary. They will discuss it and there will be a video review. The assignor will tell the official(s) personally as to what their opinion is. That will basically be it. However, if the SEC was responsible for providing the officials, lately they have taken to commenting in public on the actions of their officials.

I have a couple of friends that work a serious D1 schedule and have been told that things like this can affect league tournament placement, NIT, or NCAA tournament games.

Absolutely the big hitters get the benefit of the doubt, but no one is excused completely these days. Too many people want their pound of flesh.
...was Cahill, I believe.
__________________
If you ain't first, you're LAST!!!
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 07:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 662
Send a message via AIM to johnSandlin Send a message via Yahoo to johnSandlin
To those who think my previous comment was a BS cop-out...Why do you feel that way? My point is this.......I am not at all saying that just because this officiating crew consisted of some of the top officials in the country, that they are above the law to be disciplined. No one is in this business.

I was saying unless we were right there to hear them talk to each other about what they saw on the replay and then discuss with each other what they were going to do, then I think we cannot stand in judgment of their decision of the way they handled it.

I personally think some of my comments from earlier were taken out of context. If they were not explained better, then I am sorry for that.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 07:40pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
To those who think my previous comment was a BS cop-out...Why do you feel that way? My point is this.......I am not at all saying that just because this officiating crew consisted of some of the top officials in the country, that they are above the law to be disciplined. No one is in this business.

I was saying unless we were right there to hear them talk to each other about what they saw on the replay and then discuss with each other what they were going to do, then I think we cannot stand in judgment of their decision of the way they handled it.

I personally think some of my comments from earlier were taken out of context. If they were not explained better, then I am sorry for that.
So are you saying we don't have the right to state what we'd have called based on the video? That's how it's coming across.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 07:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes
A Forearm to the head against a guy flat on the floor...
That move is completely legal ... in the UFC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes View Post
...was Cahill, I believe.
Tough week for him.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 07:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
To those who think my previous comment was a BS cop-out...Why do you feel that way? My point is this.......I am not at all saying that just because this officiating crew consisted of some of the top officials in the country, that they are above the law to be disciplined. No one is in this business.

I was saying unless we were right there to hear them talk to each other about what they saw on the replay and then discuss with each other what they were going to do, then I think we cannot stand in judgment of their decision of the way they handled it.

I personally think some of my comments from earlier were taken out of context. If they were not explained better, then I am sorry for that.
My point is this....if this happend to any one of us, and real time is all you had....it would be difficult to get this perfect. Having said that we had several angels and slow motion. I can't see how you can come to the conclusion they did. Unless they don't have the replay we have. If that kind of a blow to the head doesn't warrant an ejection what does?
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 08:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 662
Send a message via AIM to johnSandlin Send a message via Yahoo to johnSandlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
So are you saying we don't have the right to state what we'd have called based on the video? That's how it's coming across.
No I am not saying that, I am saying that we do not have the right to judge the officiating crew. And in reading some of these posts, I think that is what is being done.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 08:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 662
Send a message via AIM to johnSandlin Send a message via Yahoo to johnSandlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by howie719 View Post
My point is this....if this happend to any one of us, and real time is all you had....it would be difficult to get this perfect. Having said that we had several angels and slow motion. I can't see how you can come to the conclusion they did. Unless they don't have the replay we have. If that kind of a blow to the head doesn't warrant an ejection what does?
As odd as this may sound, they (officiating crews) sometimes do not have all of the angles the home viewing audience has.

Also, what else was Cahill involved with this past week?
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 08:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
Also, what else was Cahill involved with this past week?
Foul call at end of Cinci/UConn game
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 08:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
As odd as this may sound, they (officiating crews) sometimes do not have all of the angles the home viewing audience has.
The video obviously tipped them off that Cousins did SOMETHING - otherwise he would have gotten nothing. But he received a technical for SOMETHING. The video clearly must have shown the elbow, otherwise they wouldn't have had anything.

The question then becomes, by necessity, why was the forearm/elbow, which virtually everybody is saying was flagrant, not deemed as such?

Guys like Greene, Shows, and Cahill normally don't have one single problem making big calls, no matter what the situation. The question here is why they didn't toss Cousins for what was clearly an ejection-worthy, non-basketball play.
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 08:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 662
Send a message via AIM to johnSandlin Send a message via Yahoo to johnSandlin
And unless we can talk them or hear them talk through the media, all of us may never know the answer to that question.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 09:46pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
No I am not saying that, I am saying that we do not have the right to judge the officiating crew. And in reading some of these posts, I think that is what is being done.
How do you define passing judgment? I see people who think they should have called a flagrant; that's the opinions of the posters. Is that what you call passing judgment?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 09:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnSandlin View Post
And unless we can talk them or hear them talk through the media, all of us may never know the answer to that question.
Well then, I guess we just shouldn't discuss plays here at all
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 02, 2010, 10:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 662
Send a message via AIM to johnSandlin Send a message via Yahoo to johnSandlin
Thanks for posting the info on the Cinci/UCONN game. Did not see the game. And I guess we will agree to disagree on this play today.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 03, 2010, 04:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Now that I've seen the game (before I opened this thread)....

When I saw the replay, I thought to myself that it "could" be considered flagrant but was perhaps just little enough that they may call it only a T (intentional T). It could have been called flagrant and I wouldn't have disagreed with it at all but I can also see how they felt it fell just a bit short of flagrent.

As for what was called that made it a dead ball....a held ball.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 03, 2010, 10:28am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 460
As a result of this play, KY #15 shot 2 FTs and KY got the ball out of bounds on the baseline.

A total of 3 Ts were given out on this play. Whistle was blown for the jumpball and the ball is dead. After seeing his teammate get elbowed, Louisville #12 gets the first T (issued by Greene) for pulling KY #15 off the pile. Louisville #21 (the player involved with the jumpball and victim of elbow) got the 2nd T (issued by Shows) for shoving KY #15.

Only after the crew looks at the replay do they issue a T to KY #15.

1) My questions are why only 2 FTs were issued? Did the crew determine after the replay that KY #15 and L'ville #21 was a double T?

2) The T by L'ville #12 occurred after a dead ball which involved contact in a non-flagrant manner. Should play resume at the division line for KY on the throw-in?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kick Catch Interference in Kentucky/Louisville Game Fan10 Football 2 Mon Sep 01, 2008 06:49am
Louisville/WVU rainmaker Basketball 11 Sun Mar 27, 2005 06:01am
Memphis-Louisville ending TriggerMN Basketball 7 Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:49pm
Cinn-Louisville.... DrakeM Basketball 11 Fri Feb 07, 2003 11:11am
The Louisville "No travelling" game ChuckElias Basketball 11 Mon Mar 25, 2002 04:49pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1