Words can't describe.... this video.
 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/76nxTZ_cCbE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/76nxTZ_cCbE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Finally he is dumped later in the game.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e_bJHSk7Aos&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e_bJHSk7Aos&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Oh, I dunno
 

Blow a gasket.....lose one's mind.....go crazy.....act a fool.....create a scene.... set a bad example....

Those are pretty good words to describe it IMO! :rolleyes:

I wonder why the official who was the target of this outburst didn't assess the initial technical foul. Instead, it looked like another official came in and ended up assessing one after the fact.

Clearly he said something over the line and knew it cause he simply walked off after getting ejected.

Almost looks like a Saturday Night Live skit.

I wondered this too, Rich. The only thing I can come up with is that maybe he tried to MF the other official to the official standing right there... all things considered, I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt to the officials.

It would not have taken much for him to say anything. His actions were enough. But then again, I have no problem with a partner sticking a coach for something said at me. It lets me know he has my back and that I do not need to hear everything to have action taken. I can live with what happened here.

Peace

No nuts by the official that was being berated. Felt bad for the official who had to administer both of the technicals.

Don't "feel bad" for him. He took care of business and did what needed to be done. Yeah, his partner had no stones - and I'm sure they discussed it later in the day.......

well they got it done, kind of weird having a coach go on like that but things to be ready for. kind of a strange play when the player lost the ball and then got hit.
way to go Cards))))))))))))))))))))))))) even though I'm a packer fan that rocked.

#1. Official allowed the coach to get way out of hand by running onto the court during the time out.

#2. I would not be the least bit surprised if he used the F-Bomb or some other bomb.

#3, I want to be clear that I am NOT defending the coach's actions in any way. At the same time, even though the video is not real clear, the defender certainly looked like he got a lot more than ball (notice the signal being given by the lead). The bench had an awfully good look at the play.

the Center was unable to provide any assistance because he was behind the play and had very bad angle.

Once again, actions inexcusable -- ejection well-warranted. But, did the offical miss the foul call?

As a parent of two High School athletes, I would have a serious issue with the way the Coach was shoving his players around after the first T. Absolutely no reason for him to make contact with the kids like that...I'd be having a meeting with the AD.

As an official - they called what he forced them to call. I would like to have seen the first one come quicker - like when he ran out on the court yelling. But they took care of it.

As a HS parent, I would echo these thoughts. I saw that the first time through, I ended up focusing more on the second play -- as it was more than a little obvious that the first T was more than deserved.

Let's see...

The head coach that was complaining was sitting at the end of his bench which was closest to the other team's basket, somewhere around the second lane space. The foul that he wanted called occurred all the way across the court appriximately at around the top of the 3-point arc.

Let's do the math.....

It's 50 feet across the court plus another few feet from the bench.

From where the coach was sitting, it would be about 54 feet down the court at the other end.

Sooooo....54 feet down and 50 feet across...square the hypotenuse...round off....deduct 2 ....add 6 inches for the Ron Jeremy(tm) effect.....and it comes out to occurring one helluva long way away from the coach.

Yup, the FAR bench had a great look at the steal.

You really do think like a coach, don't you? :D

JR,
Did not say the "head coach", I said the bench -- which was much closer to the play than 54 feet -- more like 25 feet. Appeared to have a better angle than the official on this play.

Probably a little.

couple thoughts
 

Let me preface this by saying I don't in any way condone what the coach did, and both T's appear warranted.

It 'appears' to me that the official who passed on the steal call, and didn't issue the T, looks to be a lot younger than the official who T'd the coach-hence the veteran taking care of business.

Secondly, I want you to look at the opposite side official's positioning-he's coming up court as trial, but is running past the play-why on earth would he try and work 'inside out' as a hustling trail in transition??? Not saying he got the call right or wrong, but he certainly doesn't appear to have the best angle on the play...

Thoughts?

I thought the trail over-ran the play, considering where the ball ended up. On the strip/steal, if you freeze it, the T is in the worst possible spot to officiate the steal and see if there's a whole lotta arm along with the ball.

Yet, these types of plays happen every game, especially with a lot of running and transition play. The coach's reaction is completely inappropriate and if I was the official getting that, he would've been whacked a lot quicker.

On the second play, I think the official giving the gator chop is just throwing fuel on the fire. Why signal anything? The lack of a whistle tells me everything I need to know.

First of all none of us have a great angle. The officials are much closer to the play and just because there is contact does not mean anything. I love it when coaches ask the dumbest question of all, "There wasn't contact on that?" What the heck does that have to do with anything? All contact is not a foul. It looked like a steal to me and there might have been some contact afterward, but I cannot say that for sure looking at this (particular) tape.

I agree with JR, you are thinking like a coach. There is no way the bench had a better look than two officials on this play. No way whatsoever.

Peace

I'm witholding a comment until Chseagle tells his position on this one and how the table would come into play.

I disagree with you on this. If you have no whistle it does not matter. Giving a signal does clarify what he saw and why he did not make the call. It might not be authorized, but we used to give a single for kicking the ball and that was at one time not authorized, but still illegal to kick the ball. I get questions all the time when I do not call a foul (like the one I just posted) and I do not give a signal it does not take away the opportunity to for them to say something. Actually I have started saying to coaches, "If you did not hear a whistle, we must not have thought it was a foul."

Peace

Nobody has mentioned the most obvious yet--the defender in the second video is clearly jumping towards the shooter. In so doing, having given up any semblance of a legal guarding position any contact (of which there is plenty) can be considered a foul. Did he gain an advantage? The official signaling that he capped the ball makes me think he gained a fairly significant advantage.

All I said was that in this particular case it was like adding fuel to the fire. Feel free to disagree.

First of all, I look at a play -- not as an official, coach, player, but as a person. Secondly, the Center appears to have a terrible angle. Not only that, he did not have what it took to issue the first technical when a coach can running out after him. Expecting him to make a big call in the last 15 seconds of a three point game is something I would not expect -- whether it should be made or not.

As I stated initially, the actions of this coach were completely out of line -- including the actions during the time out on the first video. At the same time, I do not view officials' calls as being infallible. The signal the official was giving appears to be one indicating that the player could not release the ball. While the video is not clear, it appeared as though the player got much more than ball on this play.

I am simply saying that I do not think it matters. In this case or any case the coach seemed to be to be geared up and has an anger problem. I have never seen a coach push his own players out of the way like they were adults to get at an official for anything. He would have been ejected by me long before the second T anyway. ;)

Peace

Fair enough. Gotta say, I've never had such a hothead in 20+ years.

I have had coaches come on the court like in the first video and draw a technical. It's his reaction to the technical that I've not seen personally. My reaction would be to give him a second one in the same sequence -- would be nice if one of the other guys would've stepped in and done it, but considering the video, it wasn't going to happen.

Nice math, but completely wrong context.

However, the play he was talking about was from the second video----at the top of the key (just 25 from the sideline) and pretty much straight in front of the coach....at most 30 feet from the coach....essentially the same look as a C would have if the C were tableside. The lead was running full speed just trying to beat the play down the court...not exactly an ideal situation to view a play....and the C was also sprinting up the court and was only getting into position well after the incident in question.

I actually don't question the call that (wasn't) made. The video didn't give me any reason to think they got it wrong. (It also didn't have enough clarity to confirm the call either).

You really do just to like to rip on people for the fun of it don't you? :rolleyes:

I agree. I have never come close to seeing a reaction like this as a player, as a coach, as an official, or as an administrator.

Well I only look at plays like these as an official. Sorry, I have been in these situations and I do not care what a person would think without looking at this through my experiences as an official.

And honestly none of us know what was said or what was not said. That might have been part of the reason he did not give a T and his partner (who was closer) did. That has nothing to do with the ruling on the play. Now without talking to that official, we have no idea why a foul was not called and we certainly do not know why a T was not given by that official. For all you know (and me too) he might not have heard the coach at all. Not all officials have the same triggers for given Ts and to say he did not have the ball or heart is not really realistic all the time.

I never said the officials could not have missed the call. But I did not see anything on tape that made me feel otherwise. For all I know it was a bad call, but the official for one thing was in a much better position to see everything than this grainy video shows that is for sure. And just because the coach went off does not mean the official did something wrong on a particular call. Again, I have been there where a defender did nothing wrong or illegal, but the player with the ball falls hard to the floor. “People” want fouls to be called on plays like this. Officials should want the play to be called right. You should not call fouls based on what looks bad, you should call fouls when someone does something illegal.

Peace

just wondering...
 

Have you ever used a complete sentence in this forum? Your comments might make sense if you do.

Probably what I should of done too, gosh darn it! :mad:

It's a spam bot, bb. It'll be gone soon.. very soon.

I am jumping in late

I agree that the first T was warranted. 100 percent..

Dont know what was said to get the second but here is what I dont like.

The kid gets "hit" and laying on the ground. There is a fould call but the official from the baseline walks past bench, calls foul, and calls T, and walks past player on floor...

Seems prudence would have somone blowing the whistle and attending to kid or beckon the coach on floor and deal with the injured player before whacking him.... My two cents

I did a BJV game a couple of years ago and stayed to watch the V game at one of the highest profile all boys HS in Cleveland. They were playing an undefeated and #2 team in the state. Referee in the V game ignited a firestorm at the game by overreacting to an innocent accident. After a made basket by HT, the ball came thru the net and bounced off the head of the V C and rolled away. Referee issued a delay of game warning and when the HC for the visitors questioned why, hr whcked the HC :eek:

A little background. When my partner and I came out at 15 minutes to 6 for the JV game warmups, the gym was packed. They were hanging from the rafters. The visitors brought SIX chartered busloads of drunk adults the 2 hours by bus it took to come to the game! So the crowd was raucous and the HT fans were greatly outnumbered this night.

In the second half, there was an apparently controversial call right by the half court line table side. I was leaning against the wall along the endline next to one of two police officers in the gym. The L was about three feet to my right and had roughly the same line of sight as I had. I realized as this controversial call was made that the L was watching the HC for the visitors. Sure enough, the HC stands up to protest the call and the L sprints down the sideline to issue the second T. The reaction in the video is nothing like the reaction from this guy. It took three assistand coaches to get him out of the gym as he just completely lost it. They almost carried him to the locker room. The game really degenerated from there and the game ended with the home team dribbing out the clock so that the officials could leave the court and be locked in the locker room with an armed guard and not allowed to leave until all the buses were loaded and gone. The AD insisted that I join them as he ddn't want to risk anything. It was the most unbelievable night of my career.

first one should have been a flagrant- that would have negated the need for the second T.

This story certainly doesn't paint that official in a positive light. :(

This remark pertains to the "alligator chop" to signal that the official saw a block rather than a foul.

I know that this topic has been discussed, but I wanted to respond to this thought. NFHS will not authorize the chop, because in the season it did so the number of "blops" (block/chop?) or foul/no-foul double calls would increase 100-fold.

It's one thing if one official passes on a foul and another calls it. It's quite another to have conflicting signals on a play. The latter looks bad, IMO.

Even apart from the question of whether we need a signal for a no-call, for this reason using the "chop" is bad mechanics.

Well I am not talking about this from a NF perspective. Not all states use NF mechanics like my state does not (to the letter that is). I am simply stating that the signal alone is not a bad signal. When it is used can be. I have no problem if someone is using this as clarification. I have used it in other situations when no possibility of another call is at issue. In other words, I have used it when the play in question is completely over. I use the tip signal on out of bounds calls often to clarify what I saw. I really do not care if the NF or anyone else likes it; I am communicating something to everyone without having to yell across the court.

Peace

1. It is a bad signal, for the reason I gave (your personal use of it notwithstanding).

2. Bringing in the "tipped ball" signal to this discussion is a famous Rutledge red herring: there's no comparable reason to discontinue using that signal.

3. The issue is not whether the signal communicates something, but whether it's the best way to communicate that content. Specifically, is it better than the mere absence of a whistle? Given its drawbacks, the answer is no, IMO.

4. You are, of course, free to ignore this reasoning and to keep doing it your way. That's not a reason supporting your view, though.

To say something is a "bad mechanic" is very subjective in the first place. And to use the "approval" of one organization is even worse IMO. I remember hearing that same logic about the "not closely guarded" signal as well because it was not approved. Then for some reason the NF adopted it like they do a lot of other mechanics other levels use. And honestly I would not be surprised in a year or two a "tip signal" is approved considering the NCAA allows both Men's and Women's sides to use that signal. And I see officials use it all the time.

Now I did not say anything about whether it was a good mechanic or not. That was not the point. The point was that in this situation right or wrong the use of not use of a signal was not going to make that much difference as to whether the coach went off in my opinion. Coaches go off no matter what we do or do not do. And you can be sarcastic all you like, but just read this site, there are all kinds of coaches going off and a signal was not the cause. ;)

Peace

There was no ripping involved. The point that I was making that the the coach on the FIRST technical was down in the corner at his end of the gym and the play occurred completely across the gym at the other end. There was nowayinhell that the coach had a good look at that play IN MY OPINION. And it was the coach that put on the show and got the "T", not the bench.

I was not sarcastic or ironic in any way. Bringing in yet another Rutledge red herring (not closely guarded) does not improve your case: the reason the "blocked shot" mechanic is bad does not apply to that signal either.

Who said anything about coaches going off? It's a bad signal because it opens the door to double calls (foul/no-foul situations). I invite you either to address that point or simply to assert that you intend to use a bad mechanic as you see fit.

This is not the point of this video being posted, I know. The coach was 100% deserved in his two Ts. Wanted to bring something else up that I don't think anyone has mentioned.

I'm not passing judgment and I know some people aren't going to like this but I believe a foul may have been missed. Looking at the 2nd video, when the kid pulls up for 3 on the fast break, notice how the ball continues upward. I'm no scientist but I have to believe basic physics tells us if the defender's hand is slapping down and the shooter is bringing the ball up, if the ball is contacted, that ball should be forced down or at least slow it's ascent. It goes about 12 feet in the air. Also, looks as if the shooter's left hand goes down while the ball and right arm continue up.

I have to believe there was some contact here and if there's any contact from a defender from behind we have a foul.

Thoughts?

2 good T's. On the first, I agree that whomever the official was that was nearest the coach should have taken care of business himself. As far as the second, the guy was on the radar for his actions early on, he must have said too much. The new acting head coach can come out and attend to his player. The second would have been a more solid T if the same official didn't have to clean up after his partner that didn't assess the T when he should have.

As far as the foul tip mechanic discussion. I'm not a fan. I had a partner use it on a play in double coverage areas. He's signalling "foul tip" or a clean block, I'm coming in as C with a foul from the back side. We were in the soup because of his extra communication. If there isn't a whistle, that means there isn't a foul. That should be communication enough. In my opinion the foul tip mechanic can potentially get you in more trouble than it will get you out of.

In good ol' Virginia ,I think they call it assault and battery. Especially if it's on your kid(s) !

did the video get dumped?

No it doesn't. And he's one of my assignors. :(

So is this in OH? No problem wearing the side panel shirts there for a HS game? Or is this a college game?

Based on looking at the floor markings, I thought this game was at the University of Minnesota Crookston (NSIC, Golden Eagles).

Certainly could be true....and it also could possibly be true that there was a foul missed at the other end before the first "T".

But a missed call can never excuse the behavior that the coach exhibited imo.

There isn't a one of us that hasn't missed a call at some time. And I can guarantee that NO official ever wanted to miss a call either. And nobody feels worse that the official who just found out that he had missed a call. All you can do is see if you can learn something from it and then just move on to the next call.

Most coaches know that also.....will grumble a bit...and then move on too. And that's the way it should be.

Jmo.....

Not sure of the answer to the first question, but the OHSAA discourages the use of of side panel shirts.

Some officials around here use them anyway for non-tournament games, either (1) to show off that they do college too, or (2) to misleadingly suggest that they do college too.

Agreed. I think that there was a foul on this play. I also find it interesting that he does not signal that the shot is a 3 point attempt or not (certainly the trail is not in position to see the play). The shot was close enough that some indication should have been made by the lead.

The signal he is giving does not appear to be the "foul tip" signal, but rather a signal that I typically only see used for a held ball when the shooter was unable to release the ball for a try. The signal indicates that a hand was on top of the ball preventing the upward movement for a shot. In Central Ohio, I only see that hand signal immediately after a held ball signal is given on such a try.

As you point out, the ball goes 12 feet into the air, the shooter's right hand continues upward, yet his left hand goes down toward the floor. If the defender had gotten on top of the ball or otherwise slowed the ball down, the shooter's shooting hand (RIGHT HAND) should have gone downward since it would have been behind and under the ball, not the hand that would have been on the side of the ball.

None of this excuses the actions of the coach -- particularly in the first video as we have no idea what he said in the second one.

It looked to me like the shooter in the 2nd video was well inside the arc.

No, definitely outside the arc.

Depends on the part of Ohio you are in, as well. In Central Ohio, none of our assignors have a problem with us wearing panels. They would like us to match as a crew, but there are games when crews are mixed. I always have both with me. I prefer to match, but if I am working with two partners one wearing panels and the other not, well, matching becomes a challenge. :)

Clearly inside the arc. I'll add something else, and if it's been mentioned, I apologize, haven't read every post. It may have been a clear block, yet we have an airborne shooter who looks like he's fouled before returning to floor. That alone is enough for me to call a foul. Of course, the angle is bad, it's a video, and I'm a good 60 feet away.

Like taking a hit on 16, I'm always protecting the airborne shooter.

This is in MN @ Concordia U - St. Paul. It's a HS section semi final from 2008.

And wide panel shirts around here are worn by many people, no mandate either way from the state HS league. I prefer to wear regular shirts but I'm often the junior guy on the crew so I go with the flow. :)

You know, you're right. I was looking at the white arc when I watched it the first few times. He's between the two arcs.

As for the missing three signal, easily explained since the shot never really got away.

Maybe I missed something in school, but usually when people have discussions or debates on issues, you bring in similar or related issues to make a point. That is what is advocated in most position papers I had to write or anytime I was in speech class both in high school and college. You address the opposition point of view by using a related issue. And it was considered a bad signal until it was adopted. Now is it the fact that it is not adopted by the NF that makes it a bad signal, or something else?

You obviously did not see these comments on page 2 of this page which started the signal discussion. And where my comments you eventually responded to were based on.

Let me say this, the use of the signal is not the issue, when the signal is used is the issue. If I have a blocked shot where I have a shooter falls to the floor and the ball goes out of bounds, and I give a "blocked" signal (or tip signal) and then signal out of bounds, not sure how you would likely have two opposing calls. Of course if anyone were to only use that signal and did so immediately that would be the case. But if the play is been ruled on and we are going the other way, I have no problem personally with someone signaling if they feel necessary. You do not like this, but we do not use the "not closely guarded" signal all over the court, we use it in very special situations to clarify why there is not a count. And the "blocked shot" signal should be used even less and in very specific situations if at all. I did not say you had to use it or not, but since this was talked about as to why the call was not made, I commented in a very specific context. Sorry that you seemed to miss the context.

Peace

I didn't miss anything. We just disagree. I don't have a problem with a supplemental signal, I just think it looks awful and oversold in this particular situation.

After further review, oops, wrong arc, although it's not clear if he's on line or not.

Rich,

I was not responding to you directly. I was using your post as an example as to how the conversation was raised. Please read the comments in who I was talking to. ;)

Peace

So you are saying that its not possible for a coach to be correct just because the are farther away or have a different angle? From the video, the players arm was grabbed, and the official was too close to the play, looking back at it.

Are you saying that officials are alway right just because they happen to be closer to the play?

The official that the tirade was directed at was closer to the coach when he stormed the floor and he failed to make a call.

We have all seen plays that officials have failed to make calls on. It is possible that there were previous plays that merited a whistle but were not called that became part of the initial blow up.

Quite frankly, they should've run him when he charged the official, then when he had a second blow up after the T.

Or because it's slimming?

I thought so too. Why didn't they, anyone?

The grainy video shows the defense grabbing the arm of the offense. Even I can see it from my computer screen from my remote location.

That's the rub............From the grainy video, etc that's what you're seeing. The official who is right there may have seen something else. That said,yes, I think he missed a foul from the limited resources I have to view it. I can't be certain. Neither can that coach who is 50-60 feet away.

Reverse the situation and say the trail calls that foul from the coach's location deep in backcourt, You might have opposing coach starring in his own video.

Let me get this straight from you. Grabbing the arm is always a foul?

Do you have a rules reference for that ruling?

Peace

I will not speak for JR but I agree with his position on this. I think coaches want it both ways. They want to say they see something across the court better than officials, but then want to tell officials what they should have called based on where they are standing. The official that was in this video was much had a much better angle (on the first play) than the coach any day. And based on what the video showed, the coach was near the end of the bench on the end line area. So he was more than 50 feet away from the play and that does not include who he had to look around to see the entire play. And to really know if the official got this right or wrong, we would need a closer or possibly different angle to tell either way. If the ball was poked out first, then all other contact can and should be ignored if you know how to actually call the game. All contact is not a foul and never was intended to be. So it is really an issue to know what took place first and the nature of the contact as well. We are not going to know that on this video. But we do know that the coach is much further away from the play than the calling officials on this play.

Peace

Grabbing the arm = hold. The hold was on the right forearm of the offensive player and resulted in a possession consequence (advantage not intended by rule) of white losing the ball.

Never said that grabbing (holding) is always a foul. Those are your words. By that logic nothing is a foul.

I understand where everyone is coming from.

But I see what Jeff's saying, too. If the ball was poked out cleanly and there's a subsequent grab of the arm, it may or may not be a foul.

To me, it looked (on the grainy video) that the arm grab led to the loss of possession, which would be a foul. And the official was in a bad place to see it. Happens. The meltdown that resulted is inexcusable, regardless.

Have you ever made a long distance call? You might have been wrong because you were too far away. Well, I guess I can't argue with that.

In my day to day job, I deal with safety issues. I can certainly see a safety concern (even a minor one) from 50 - 60 feet away. I think its possible to have a good look at something with some distance.

Distance offers perspective otherwise, as officials we would try to always be 3 feet away from all of our calls.

Then you do not understand where I am coming from. If the ball is poked out first and in an effort to go for the ball some touching of arms and body takes place, it is not a foul unless someone is put at a disadvantage. If you have the ball stolen from you, there better be more than a simple grab to cause a foul. That player better has been put at a disadvantage. And I am not saying anything goes during a loose ball, but when the ball is lose and bodies are flying all over the place, it is not in my experience a good practice just to call a foul because there is some minor body contact or even very brief contact with the arms unless there is a clear disadvantage. And I am using the incidental contact rules to justify that and common practice. It looks to me like the ball was stolen first and then some contact afterward. That may not be the actual case, but I have seen plays like this before and if the illegal contact did not result in the steal, I have got a play on.

Peace

Do you have a rules reference for your safety issue? I am not finding that reference in the rulebook anywhere.

Peace

Rich

I have agreed with everything you said. I also said I understand everyone's points.

Arm grab resulted in loss of possession. The official was in a bad place. I previously stated that the coach should've gotten the boot for his second outburst that involved shoving players, throwing clipboard/notebook, rather than waiting until the end of the game. BTW, reading the scoreboard the home team (in white) was up 3 with 20 +/- seconds to go, the coach was not too bright to get up and complain when he likely knew he had the "seatbelt."

My contention is that just because the distance by the coach is greater than that of the officials is not in itself a reason to dismiss the belief that the coach has a legitimate complaint. How he decided to express his complaint is another issue.

I call a great game from 10 rows up. For one thing, I'm focused on what I'm watching or better said only need to concentrate on view of my choice. There's no pressure, and you do get a great perspective from a distance . I understand what you're saying as well as Jeff. There are no absolutes. I agree with Jeff that there is the possibility the ball was poked loose and the resulting 'hold' is incidental. We just don't know.

We are all in agreement that the coach was acting like a petulant child.

Right. But look at where the trail is when the ball is poked out (hold or no hold). Is that really the best place to see that? Freeze the action. Wouldn't it have been a better look if the T had slowed down a bit and stayed out towards the division line more?

We can argue all day if it's a foul or not, but I'd rather focus on what could be done a little differently, if anything. I'm not saying that official didn't do the best he could in a high paced up and down sequence, just would rather talk about that than whether or not a grainy YouTube video shows a foul or not.

Yes that is my point.

Peace

This is pretty fascinating. The first video shows what might be a foul, but these types of calls are missed on occasion. The coach flips, gets T'd pretty late. He also could have gotten thrown for continuing to be out of control. The second video shows what I would consider a clear foul. He's not is position, moving towards the shooter, and the shooter goes down hard with the defender ending up where the shooter initiated his shot. It's pretty obvious that even if the ball was touched, he did not have a chance to land. The severity of that play with no whistle, combined with the situation of a close game with less than a minute, does not look good for the crew. IMO, they missed an Oh My God.

Throwing someone after a call was probably missed without a freak out like video #1 doesn't look good. I use T's as a last resort, which is a minority opinion with this crowd. The first one was automatic and could have even been an ejection, but I don't like video 2 at all.

BTW, the facial expression of the C on both of these is poor. Smirking is never professional no mkatter what a coach or player does. :rolleyes:

Jeff, you are missing the point on this. I said in my 8-5 job I can see things from a distance that concern safety. If you are putting someone's life in danger, for you to dismiss it as merely my being too far away you are off base.

I realize this play is not a safety issue, but it is possible that the coach saw it better from a distance.

I get that you say there might have been a tip prior to contact with the arm.

What do you have if a ball is tipped away and is loose, a player reaches out and grabs the arm/jersey/leg of a player that is now positioned to secure the ball and is now no longer able to make a play for the ball?

fullor & Jeff

To say there are no absolutes is completely false. Jeff I know you work college ball and there are absolutes according to: 2 hands on the dribbller, and tripping the dirbbler. :D

Tripping the dribbler is a new one this year and it is being enforced by evaluators. 2 hands on the dribbler is exceptionally difficult to see, interpret, and call 100% of the time and is frankly not being enforced by evaluators unless it occurs well outside the 3-point arc.

I cannot speak for your job. That is another issue outside of officiating. Fouls are to be called by the official in the primary area. What looks bad is not a reason to call a foul. And if contact clearly with the ball was first, there better be more than what I saw to call a foul. On the other hand if contact with the body or arm took place first, then we have a foul. I can live with that too. My point is that the player did not get knocked down and if contact was with the arm did not cause the steal, I have got nothing. Steals and blocks often have body contact of some kind. That does not make them fouls.

Peace

1) Nope, I'm saying that he hasn't got a good a view as the T and C on this play, and they both passed on the call. That's one of the few facts that we have, as far as I'm concerned. I'm also saying it's ridiculous to go nuts over a call that is that far away from you.

2) Possibly. In cases like this though, I really like to hear the officials' side of it before I say one way or another. I'm funny like that.:) Note that's officials(plural). I'd like to talk to both the T and the C and ask what they saw. And btw, note that you also can't get unanimity from the officials in this forum watching that clip as to whether a foul occurred or not. Doesn't that tell you something?

3) Nope. I've already stated that it was certainly possible that the T missed the call but that was no reason for the coach to go nutso.

4) Agree. And again, I'd like to talk to the crew before I made up my mind one way or another re: the way the situation was handled.

5) Agree ...and that's another variable missing that stops us from making a final decision re: placing any possible blame on any official.

6) Quite frankly, I agree and that's probably what I would have done.

I will not speak for Jeff but I agree with his position on this. :D

And it may have looked that way to the T too. Illegal contact is always a judgment call.

Or maybe he blew the call(shrug).

Nonsense. It's one of the easiest calls you can make anywhere on the court if you're refereeing the defense.

You misunderstood my point, sorry if it wasn't clear. There are no absolutes regarding what I saw on video, what the coach saw from the bench 60 feet away or what the 3 officials saw.

As stated earlier in the thread this game was in MN. We have a few of our own non-Fed rules here in the land of 10,000 lakes. Home team wears dark, visitors wear white and 18 min halves are the most obvious. So his team was behind not ahead at the time of his ejection. The other MN poster correctly stated no real preference on regular or side panels shirts, but they do want the crew to match.

Regardless of +/- 3 pts, I totally agree coach was not too bright in getting his 2nd T and the ejection, the game was not yet decided.

The problem with that is the comments you were responding to were about the SECOND video and T...and as such, were completely off base.

It appeared when you came back here that you had quit being jerk to anyone who had a differenet opinion than you....basically turning a lot of decent people away from the site....but I guess I was wrong.

As for not responding to me, fine. I don't expect you to be able to keep up intellectually. Your tactics usually involve bullying and belittleing people in to submission rather than sticking to the merits....and that clearly doesn't work with me.

Forgive me for asking this, but how do you bully someone on an internet site? What can someone do, come through the internet and kick someone's azz? And how do you submit online? Is there so much pain on the keyboard that you have to back down? :D

Peace

When some new poster asks questions, even pretty basic questions, and he responds, more often than not, met with a condescending, holier than thou attitude, do you really think that is going to foster dialog, learning, camaraderie and cooperation? Do you think that they'll stick around and listen? Or go away? I'd bet he's run more people off with his approach than anything else here. As good as this site is and as useful as it can be, it will not help anyone who is ridiculed and run off.

He also can't stick to discussing the point. When someone doesn't bow to his opinion, he resorts to calling names or saying the others stupid. Such behaviors are typical of someone who can't compose a decent argument and can only rely on such tactics to divert the discussion from the merits.

Drop it. Both of you.

So getting back to the original idiot here - the Coach...any of you MN guys know what came of all this? Did the coach get into any trouble over this outburst? Did any of the parents of the kids he shoved around take any action through the school?

I read in some paper article that this was the last game of the season and he skirted a one-game suspension by scheduling some kind of meaningless game this season.

Interesting
 

Is that like suspending a baseball pitcher for three games even though he pitches every fourth day? :(

Agree. It's childish and I deleted/amended my posts.

Honestly Camron I was being funny and joking. I did not expect a real response from you. Also if people cannot handle someone with a moniker coming at them, then they really do not need to be officiating in the first place if that is a major issue from them. For one none of us really know the people we are dealing with and we will never meet them. And folks like JR never bother me because he is like the people I am used to dealing with. He is direct and you can take it or leave it. If you do not like what he has to say, do not pay attention. I do the very same things when I see individuals at camp. I am going to tell you what I think, because at the camp is going to be much nicer and more helpful than when you have a coach in your ear. And the last time I checked, none of us are perfect. That includes me and you and the way we have responded from time to time here. ;)

Peace

There is a coach that tried that in my state and he was suspended further. And eventually the actions like that (along with a few others) the coach lost his job.

Peace

Since everyone here is harping on signals I'm surprised no one has brought up the use of the baseball style ejection signal on the 2nd T.

Estatic, yes! Idiot, wouldn't go that far.
 

I was excited to see this video posted here. I went to DeLaSalle, played in the program under Thorson and am now a high school official. I can only put this video under the category of "Classic Thorson".

To say Coach Thorson is an idiot - we'll, I think you would be in small company in that group.

No, he is not going to get nominated for any "Sportsmanship Awards", but don't think that it will bother him one bit. If you don't think his players fed off thatenergy, you would be dead wrong. Also don't think that type of behavior (or any complaining) amongst his players would be tolerated by him.

DeLaSalle perennially plays this playoff game vs. Holy Angels as both teams come out of sections. I'm sure there was much anticipation leading up to this game. I am an official, and would have definitely been swifter with the first technical. Coach Thorson is VERY well known. That young ref had to have known who he was officiating for prior to the game. I'm willing to bet the officials pre-gamed about Thorson, who can turn off his anger like a light switch (except this time). The official choked on his whistle and should have given Thorson the technical sooner. I'm not justifying coming out on the floor, but an earlier technical may have prevented the opportunity to do so. I'm sure there was plenty of yelling by Thorson in between those videos, and obviously when the second technical came he was ready to walk off.

We do not care about a fan's perspective. The coach is an idiot, just because you as a fan do not think so does not mean others would not have a different opinion. Just saying.

Peace

It's not like I'm the mom at a youth game yelling 'call it both ways, ref!'. I enjoy officiating coaches and players who have a high level of intensity, but I understand why my opinion is not universal. Anyone can call anyone an idiot, its all perspective. I get it. However, I'm suggesting that 30 seconds of video doesn't always tell the story. There is a ton of reading between the lines here. My sole point is: Don't think there are no positive outcomes to his actions, and that you understand the entire context from 30 seconds of video. But, yes, if you feel he is an idiot, an idiot he will be to you.