Xavier vs Kansas State

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The one I thought was missed was in the last two minutes of regulation. The K State player batted/threw the ball into backcourt off a rebound where it was recovered by a teammate. He had both hands on the ball, looked like control to me. Apparently the guys that count disagreed.

What has "both hands on the ball" have to do with anything? That's completely irrelevant when it comes to determining whether player control has been established. The only criteria to be used is whether the ball came to rest in either one or both hands of any player.

And imo in that particular play it didn't. Always a judgment call.

[bainsey]

There's another play from this game that I'd like to discuss.

Late in regulation, K-State was "trying to foul." There was contact made on one play near the division line, but the dribbler had a good clear path ahead of him, so no whistle. A few seconds later, there was a foul on a three-point attempt.

The color commentator (I came into the game late and didn't get names) was lamenting how unfair it was to K-State that the first contact wasn't called, and that Xavier gets three free throws instead of two, because the officials "missed" the first contact. Personally, I'm not sold that it was missed.

I disagree that this "should" have been called a foul, for two reasons. First, while there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact. Second, should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard? How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

As a new guy here, I could easily be asking something discussed many times before, and I apologize if that's the case. Still, I'd enjoy thoughts on this.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There's another play from this game that I'd like to discuss.

Late in regulation, K-State was "trying to foul." There was contact made on one play near the division line, but the dribbler had a good clear path ahead of him, so no whistle. A few seconds later, there was a foul on a three-point attempt.

The color commentator (I came into the game late and didn't get names) was lamenting how unfair it was to K-State that the first contact wasn't called, and that Xavier gets three free throws instead of two, because the officials "missed" the first contact. Personally, I'm not sold that it was missed.

I disagree that this "should" have been called a foul, for two reasons. First, while there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact. Second, should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard? How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

As a new guy here, I could easily be asking something discussed many times before, and I apologize if that's the case. Still, I'd enjoy thoughts on this.

It's being discussed in this thread -
Here's a switch

[jalons]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The color commentator (I came into the game late and didn't get names) was lamenting how unfair it was to K-State that the first contact wasn't called, and that Xavier gets three free throws instead of two, because the officials "missed" the first contact. Personally, I'm not sold that it was missed.

Len Elmore

Originally Posted by bainsey

I disagree that this "should" have been called a foul, for two reasons. First, while there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact.

Look at the other thread. The "no-call" seems to be the opinion of the majority (so far).

[MathReferee]

At first glance I was thinking backcourt on this one too, but then I had to go back to the old adage : If the player that threw the ball into the backcourt were to request a timeout at that moment, would I grant it?

I reached the conclusion that I most certainly would not, so no BC.

As for the foul situation at the end of regulation...that's the risk Martin takes for using that strategy. The first contact was minimal, but at the same time I think the official may have been surprised by the strategy too.

On another note, anyone else want to be on the receiving end of Frank Martin's "death stare"?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

...
On another note, anyone else want to be on the receiving end of Frank Martin's "death stare"?

Yes, I'm bigger than he is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

On another note, anyone else want to be on the receiving end of Frank Martin's "death stare"?

No, cause I'd probably start laughing on the court. And then something would burst in Martin's head and I'd feel responsible.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

No, cause I'd probably start laughing on the court. And then something would burst in Martin's head and I'd feel responsible.

Aren't some coaches just the cutest l'il things when they go into their "high dudgeon" mode? I'm with you; I've had a heckuva time repressing the urge to start giggling at some of 'em. They forget that I got a whistle that's 10 feet tall, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and can bend steel with it's bare hands. And I ain't afraid to use it(if I can blow it while giggling).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Aren't some coaches just the cutest l'il things when they go into their "high dudgeon" mode? I'm with you; I've had a heckuva time repressing the urge to start giggling at some of 'em. They forget that I got a whistle that's 10 feet tall, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and can bend steel with it's bare hands. And I ain't afraid to use it(if I can blow it while giggling).

It's funny, cuzz when I was still playing military ball I used to think staring down a ref accomplished something. Now I realize I looked like an idiot. I now ref with those guys I sillily thought I was intimidating.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

They forget that I got a whistle that's 10 feet tall, faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound and can bend steel with it's bare hands.

When it's not being used at a game, does it wear glasses and work at a newspaper? And wasn't that hot mom in the third row Lois Lane?

BTW - years ago, I reffed with a guy named Jimmy Olson. I should have made him refer to me as "Mr. Kent".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What has "both hands on the ball" have to do with anything? That's completely irrelevant when it comes to determining whether player control has been established. The only criteria to be used is whether the ball came to rest in either one or both hands of any player.

And imo in that particular play it didn't. Always a judgment call.

I was merely describing the play. He caught (I thought) the ball in both hands and threw it backward, as opposed to batting, which of course can be with both hands, but more often involves only one hand.