Butler vs Duke - CREW
 

Contrats to the crew.

John Cahill, Tom Eades, Ted Valentine

Darn - I was hoping it would be Karen Valentine.

http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/...0Valentine.jpg

must be typo...gotta be Jon Diebler...

No - he's the new head of IAABO.

But, he's not blind!

Ted Valentine
 

Honestly...The fact that Ted Valentine is working the national championship game is very embarrassing for the profession. Even if he gets every judgment call and rules interpretation correct, his attitude and demeanor on the court only serve to validate some of the stereotypes officials are often branded with.

I get the impression that Mr. Valentine honestly believes that the entire nation tuned into the game tonight to watch him!!! Grrrrrr!

Embarrassment? You have got to be kidding me. The fact you even said this is an embarrassment to the profession.

Peace

I concur...

I always wondered when being assertive and confident became a negative.

Me, I think Valentine is the best there is. There's a reason he's the R in the biggest game of the year.

Seemed to me he was the only one willing to blow his whistle tonight

We have had Burr, Higgins and many others that do more of the same that Valentine gets blamed for and Valentine is the embarrassment?

I was wondering the same thing. We are not robots and we are not the same people. If it is not your style, then it is not your style. But Valentine is alright with me and always will be.

Peace

Greg Anthony and Stu Mandel ripped on Ted all night via Twitter, and he was the only guy gettin' it done.

When the person has a dark complexion. (Or a vagina.)

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/s...aughing001.gif

Peace

this post is in no way a rip on Mr. Valentine, but did anyone else have trouble hearing his whistle? It sounded much different than the other 2 guys working.

I thought Valentine called an excellent game tonight.

No I did not. But then again Valentine is from the East and there is a philosophy I have heard from guys out there (like a Jim Burr) that the shorter the whistle the more confident you make it seem your call is. Not to say I agree with that, but Valentine seems to use his whistle very short and quick. Then again, I did have the TV turned up. ;)

Peace

There were a couple times it was too short or too soft - or both, I'm not sure. I definitely wasn't sure it had actually been a whistle.

Now, this was through the TV, not on the court, and I never saw anyone on the court that seemed to not hear the whistle. So, maybe it was just a slightly different pitch that would have been easy to hear in person but didn't get picked up well on TV.

+1

There were any number of experienced officials qualified and competent to do this game. Valentine was but one of 'em, but he definitely was one of 'em.

JMO.

I don't think Valentine was the R. Although he tossed, Cahill administered the throw in to start the 2nd half. BTW, I thought the crew did an excellent job.

I thought the crew did a nice job overall!! The big men on both teams got into some foul trouble, but it is what it is. The calls were solid & very obvious. I did notice the faint sound of the whistles at certain times of the game. But I thought that was due to the 70,000 strong. As for the shortness on the pop, I liked it... I'll start working on that tonight in preperation for the camp season!

Cahill did administer the 2nd half throw in. I'll admit many years ago I thought Valentine was a show-boat but his style grows on you and he can flat out ref a game. Now I enjoy watching him.

She is one of three reasons I KNEW I would marry a brunette...the other two being Annette and Sally Field.

Agree. He has some mannerisms that I'm not that fond of either, one being too many extraneous and needless signals. I've seen him giving the big hand-on-hand good block signal. While doing so, he's fllat-footed, the play's going the other way and he's now put himself a few steps out of getting into the best position he could be in if something happens in his zone. He sureasheck isn't the only one though.

The bottom line is still that it really doesn't matter how you get there; it matters that you do get there. And Valentine usually ends up doing what he's been hired to do. And he did so last night also, imo.

I've got mixed feelings about the game because I really respect the crew that was out there. I thought the game was too physical and not a lot of John Adams' POE's were called. There were a few block/charge plays with players on the floor with no whistle by the crew. High hedge screens from the backside off-ball with illegal contact were not called. Drives to the hole with a foul were called "no shot", not allowing continuous movement to develop. These are things that observers point out on games that I work so I tend to watch for these things on TV.

There were great calls by the crew as well and I thought they did a good job dealing with the coaches. Of course in the end I realize it's easy to say things watching it on TV than being on the floor itself.

I saw a lot of "incidental" contact out there last night. Crew did a great job recognizing and passing on calls.

I agree on the screens...there were some horrible screens being set by both teams. Especially the Duke big guys going out high and turning to pick the defender off with their butts as the defender was going past them. But they were consistent at both ends of the court...

This move ought to be called a zoubek.

Not the R?
 

I don't think he was the R on the game. He tossed, but Cahill handled the seconnd half throw-in. Minor point, but it caught my attention.

There may be different opinions on how they called the game, but they appeared to be consistent in their approach.

I thought the crew did a good job and Teddy was Teddy.

Ted Valentine was NOT the "R" in this
contest...

I thought it got a bit too football-ish at times, but overall, the consistency was great. Some spots where I think a whistle would have helped, but as John Clougherty always said, "make your few errors errors of omission." I did think that Teddy V stepped up his calls a bit in the 2nd half, which IMO was a good thing.

He sure acted like it, and I mean that in the most positive way.

I thought the crew did a great job by not upgrading the Duke foul on Butlers drive to the rack! The result was worse than it originally appeared. The defender did a good job of catching up to the play & getting in front of the player vs. the foul from behind...

The game
 

The crew did a great job! They let both teams play to their strengths which made the game entertaining. They called what needed to be called and went on a little run of their own when the intensity and physicality were starting to cross the line.

As a fan, the officials were barely noticeable, which is what I think we all strive for.

I usually notice Teddy Ballgame during the regular season, but this time I really didn't notice him more than the others.

What would have it been had Howard made those 3 early shots from point blank range and had he not picked up his 4th so early? hmmm

Speak for yourself, amigo, it's not even on my list of goals. It's not even on my radar for possible goals in the future.

Misspoke a bit there, my bad. :cool: I think you sort of get what I was trying to say.

There was nothing in that game that made me notice the officials, or that made me say the guys really kicked that one. I had a rooting interest for Butler as I played against them back in the day and I really don't like Duke.

So what's the consensus on the screen by Howard at the end? Did he set the screen so that Singler had an opportunity to stop or change direction?

Methinks not.

That day was a while back, wasn't it!!:D

Rocky,

I am reluctant to do the math :)

You speaking about the half-court shot? I noticed a Duke player getting wiped out when watching one of the replays. No one way anyone would be whistling that.

Going back to Valentine's "soft" whistle, I was at a meeting once in which two officials were somewhat arguing about using your whistle to "sell a call". One said it was important to do so to appear assertive. The other said just the fact that he made the call was assertive enough. He went on that he didn't have "anything to prove" to the coaches or players about his calls and that when he made a call, that was all he needed to do. If a coach or player disagreed with his call, so what? It wasn't his responsibility to justify his calls to them.

I thought it was an interesting discussion.

That's not the point, is it? Was it a legal screen or not?

the pick jukes set for heyward that scheyer ran into? wooooooweeeeeeeeeee, that was a dandy!

I don't know, I only saw it once and I wasn't watching the action of those players, I only saw the aftermath.

How about posting a clip of the play?

I don't have a clip, but you can see highlights of the game here, and the final play is towards the end.

i was wrong....jukes didn't set that screen....the tall kid with the mustache did....

Legal screen all the way.

No Call!
 

Legal screen. Singler took 2-3 steps at the time Howard set the screen. Howard leaned into it anticipating hard contact. Just because the contact is severe doesn't make it a foul.

LOL. Sorry, but I gotta give you a hard time for this one, seeing as though you have no earthly idea what Howard's intent was on leaning into the screen. He could have just as easily been thinking "I gotta lay this guy out so my boy can get his shot off."

Well, either way, no way that call is being made minus a premeditated decapitation.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on intent unless he shows me something different.

Rule says he gets at most two steps, he got that here. The only call here might be to the trainer.

that wasn't Howard, that was Lawrence Taylor!!!:D


the earlier play with Haward and Thomas) should have been an intentional foul.
Congrats Duke, players of the game Thomas* and Zoubek.

Hill? Who is Hill?

So you're saying if it had been an illegal screen it wouldn't have been called?

Would you have called it in that situation if it was illegal?

No, he's saying that since the screener was in position in plenty of time, the only way you call him for a foul is if he attempts to perform a cranial removal.

I dunno. Earlier, he said he hadn't even seen the play, and no way was anyone going to call anything on a Duke player getting wiped out on the last play.

Sorry, but I was following the entire discussion and assumed he was making his comment with all the current information.

Late to the game here.....
 

For what it's worth (and I do only HS):

I thought the crew did well.

I thought the game was very physical.

I too was "interested' at the no calls on the "wide bases" on the screens.

I too question a few of the block/charge calls. Close. Gotta make a call.... and they did.

I was impressed how many times along the endline/sideline one official looked to the other for assistance when the ball went off someone out of bounds and got it - quickly and emphatically.

I didn't see a whole lot of chirping from either coach really. Not a fan of his, but I didn't think Coach K's antics were anything but normal last night - for any coach.

I really like the Butler Coach. Class all the way.

I LOVED watching Coach K go right up to the Coaches Box line and stop - like a dog with an invisible collar. He respected it - at least last night.

I really enjoyed the game. Because of the Team's makeup, it was about execution and shooting not dunking and smash mouth. Me likey.

My $.02.

Twitter post last night by a blogger:

"In case you couldn't tell, Teddy Valentine PWNZ this game." :D

I haven't bothered watching the clip. I trust JR's assessment of the play.

So, nope, I wouldn't have. Not a screen where so far we have some folks saying it was legal and a few Duke fans say it wasn't.

It would have to be so obvious an illegal screen that Mr. Butler himself would have called it.

That's just reality for this particular situation.

To be called, it would also have to be an illegal screen that gave some kind of advantage to the screening team. This one didn't imo....legal or illegal. The player being screened wasn't really in a position to make a play on the dribbler and I also doubt very much in that situation that he wanted to get close enough to the dribbler to try anything anyway. The last thing in the world that he wants to do is take a chance on making contact from behind with a guy throwing up a 45-foot prayer.

Your point is well taken imo, Newz. Fwiw I agree that is the reality for that particular situation at that level.

Hayward got out of the blocks better, but Singler's still a stride ahead (and to the side) of him when the contact occurs on the screen. Can't see how Singler could be considered to be out of the play.

Having said that, Mr. Butler here believes it was a good screen anyway.

Saw the play a few times at lunch today. It was a legal screen IMO.