WTH does that mean?

You want him to jump in between two 6'7" eighteen year olds or do you want him to tackle the 6'7" teenager who's already thrown a larger man to the floor?

I've always been told to never, ever place my hands on a student-athlete.

No excuse for it, but it is being taken away from him
 

When this kid lost his head and did this, he essentially forfeited all control of his immediate basketball future. Yes, the punisment is and will be from the direct result of his own actions, but he no longer controls whether he can particpate or not and rightfully so. That has been taken away from him.

Semantics? Maybe, but to say that the game hasn't been taken away from him implies not just that his actions are the reason why (this part is true), but that he refuses to show remourse and take responsibility.

I think he should be not allowed to play HS sports a minimum of 1 year. If he's a senior, oh well, too bad. Then he should be sentenced to 1 year community service to be served as a youth league (Rec ball) referee. That may help him get a clue.

Hey, I knew my comments wouldn't be received well. I think Rut is the only one (so far) to see it rationally and I have no problem with his response. I was just wondering why nobody mentioned it.

As far as what the trail did NOT do? Are you guys serious? What else did the trail have to look at other than two kids who were pushing each other? The C called what the trail failed to call. That is all I'm saying and...hold on let me look at it for the 100th time...yep, the trail has a count and either looks right past this match-up to the ball or ignores it. There were three players...hold on let me look at it for the 101st time...yep, three players in the backcourt so the C really should have been focusing elsewhere.

The kid was dead wrong for what he did, BUT there are other things to consider in this video.

What are you doing to your Airmen? I didn't see that posture and I dealt with more Airmen in a day than most people do their whole career (MTL).

Sigh. :rolleyes: Exactly as I figured. You need to go back and look at it for the 102nd time but this time get somebody to watch it with you that can explain some officiating basics to you. Neither the trail or the center was out of position when the initial contact and first foul occurred. The initial contact near the endline after the free throw was on the other side of the lane with the defender directly inside the white player and also in a direct line with the trail. The trail was completely straight-lined, which is very common from that position right after a free throw when the players start upcourt. Because he is straightlined, there is nowayinhell the trail can ever see who initiates any contact between those 2 players. That's why the C has to keep an eye on that play while he's releasing upcourt. He has to get crap like this because the trail can't. The C is the only one who can possibly see the separation and what's going on. In this situation, the C did exactly what he was supposed to do. The trail didn't miss a damn thing because there is nowayinhell any official in the world could ever make a call in that situation without guessing.

The bottom line is that the officials as a team caught the first foul and the succeeding fouls. When they do that, they should never be second-guessed like this imo. But that's just me.

Yup, as I said that's exactly what I expected from you, Tom. 'Nuff said.

That's my opinion and I really don't care if you don't receive it well.

Have to agree with JR about the straight-lined business...also - how do you know that the T wasn't just about to crack hiswhistle, but the C beat him to it?

Oh, that's right - you don't know that.


Oh well...

Ha! He works at Hill AFB now - was at Osan. He's on a 3-man loading team working on the F-16's, mid-shift.. "Non-ers" is the flight line guys names for all the 8:00-5:00 guys!:D

The trail is responsible for the ball and the count. He picks up the player with the ball as he receives the throw-in and begins the count. The foul by the thrower. The C gets the foul as he should, stays with the play and gets the T.

Gotta love you camp types that think everything has to be done one specific way. Back on my Ignore list for you.

"All the time" may have been overkill, but I've seen it. It's simply a pleading posture. I do see it regularly on the basketball court. I'm convinced there's a class on this posture offered to NBA players.

And your statement that Rut was the only one who responded reationally implies, indirectly, that rocky and I were somehow irrational. Now I'm curious to find out which part of our responses you felt fell short of reason.

The Trail should NOT have been stacked on this play. That is his match-up to officiate period dot. *sigh*, here we go with those who "just want to get it right". It was a non-basketball play so anyone should get it anywhere. However, the Trail does have a responsibility on this play to officiate SOMETHING. I guess some are suggesting it is normal for two officials to watch three players - one with the ball and two others - all the time. I don't think so, but according to some (JR) I need some help. Humorous since JR and Tony will take their ball and go away if people don't agree with everything or almost everything they say. Unlike some, I don't officiate from my keyboard nor do I advance based on years of service in an organization.

I do have to apologize to Snaqs and Rocky for implying their responses were not rational. Snaqs pointed that out and that was wrong - must be the rational Air Force way of thinking on his part.

There may or may not have been areas in this play for the trail to improve his positioning, but no one is saying you should always have 2 officials watching 3 players in the backcourt. In fact, they are saying the C should stay and watch the play as he transitions to the frontcourt. IOW, hang back and make sure the T doesn't miss anything.

The T is stacked for a second or two, but it's an unfortunately timed second.

But, to bring it up in this context comes across as implying that you think the T could have somehow prevented all this. By what? Making the same call the C made, only a split second sooner? I don't think you were trying to imply that, but the inference isn't difficult to make.

The C should not let 7 players go down the court and stay with three players and the Trail. What if two of the other players start pushing each other? The Lead is supposed to watch 7 players? The trail official is not stacked on this play. He was not in the best position, but he was not "completely straight-lined." To be "completely straight-lined" he would have had to have been at the three-point line if he kept going in the same path he was going.
The Trail is NOT completely stacked. Also, maybe it would help if he used his outside hand to chop the clock. Then, when players - three players - take a path on the opposite side of the court he should make at least an attempt to come on the court as opposed to staying near the sideline. His first step is straight up the court even though his competitive match-up is on the other side of the lane. If his first step would have been in the direction of his competitive match-up he would have had a better angle to see all three players - the players he is responsible for at the time.

The C NEVER takes his eyes off the ball leaving the new Lead with 7 players. The largest pack of players - the group the C should move down the court with - are not in his field of vision because his eyes are glued to the ball. If this action would have occurred with two players on the opposite side from where it happened the new Lead would have to have eyes on 7 players or nobody would get it. If the C had his eyes on the pack of players, the Trail would have still had his eyes where they were - this is normal 3-person officiating. It is not normal for two officials to watch 3 players come up the court when there is no press on.

I'm not sure what you expected from me. I don't officiate where you (wherever you are) or Tony are. If I did I'm confident I would have success because I kind of know what I'm doing. :D Both your opinions only matter in a "Kingdom" you have created. If you are the one who criticized someone for being on Facebook you are no different. In fact it is worse when you want to go unquestioned in a social environment based on your post count or status as a crabby old man. Sounds like a high school group of friends to me. What I expect from you is for your behavior to continue unless you have several people disagree with you. If that happens you (and others in your "group") will simply go away. When the ball goes up, your social status doesn't matter one bit; the game matters.

So you are speaking for "they" now? I have a few questions for you:

Is it normal for 2 officials to watch 3 players come up the court without pressure or not?
What keys (rules of thumb or whatever) should the C use to transition up the court?
Should the Trail take a straight path up the court regardless of where players are?

Serious answer?

No, it's not normal. But it is normal for the C to step down on the free throw, hang a second, and take a look at the matchups before heading to the frontcourt to officiate the other seven players since it takes a few seconds for those players to get down there and even contemplate trouble. And in this situation, seeing the jousting going on in the backcourt, I'm doing exactly what the C did there -- hanging back and keeping an eye on those players. The C's mechanics here, IMO, are impeccable.

Without the immediate jousting and shoving? I'm heading downcourt where the rest of the players are.

It's easy to blame the T for not being involved in this process, but it could simply be a quicker whistle by the C, who didn't have a ball matchup to worry about as well. Since I still work a fair amount of 2-person, I won't absolve the T -- in a 2-person game, he'd better get that.

Nah, I don't speak for "they". I have a hard enough time speaking for me.

I was, however, speaking to the way I read JR (one of "they") when he wrote the following.

He said nothing about "all the time," as you noted in your response.

As for your follow up questions: I'm not questioning whether there may or may not have been room for improvement for the trail. I'm not addressing it because I don't think it matters in this context. It wouldn't have had any impact on the results; other than the fact that the T would have been the one getting mauled if he'd called the foul.

I would also question the harshness with which you brought it up. If you were speaking directly to him while watching film, would you have worded it that way, "You failed to do what you're getting to do."