CSU-UNLV

just another ref · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 12:40am

Yet another example of you know what. End of the game, 2.9
left, shooting free throws. A miss, a rebound, a timeout.
Announcers went on and on about how late the clock started.
They said it should have started when the ball hit the rim.

JRutledge · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 12:51am

I almost fell out of my seat. Usually these guys that did this game were much better than that.

Peace

devdog69 · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 05:52pm

I was watching a women's game last week on Fox, there was a man and a woman announcing and the guy said "they were really fortunate there because the officials missed a ten-second backcourt violation, :12 went off the clock before they crossed halfcourt". I was cracking up, where has this guy been and why is he announcing a women's game if he knows nothing about it. The woman tactfully pointed out that they don't have that rule in the women's game, but I bet she was thinking "dumbsh!t".

rockyroad · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 08:04pm

Isn't the CSU-UNLV game the same one where the refs let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU star (the 7 footer) during a loose ball, and he caught a nasty poke in the eye? I agreed with the CSU coach on that one - should have been a foul...

rainmaker · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 08:52pm

The best Packerism from yesterday: Ref called BI when the ball was touching the flange, and a defender gives the net a good solid shove. Packer says, "That was a bad call! Everyone knows the ball has to be down in the net before BI can be called." My husband (no aficianado I assure you) says, "Even I know that's not true!"

Incidentally, that game had a defensive BI call, an offensive BI call and a goaltending call all in the first half. Fascinating!!

TriggerMN · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 09:52pm

Maybe it was lack of sleep from staying up until 1 or 2 in the morning to watch all of these games, but I thought Jimmy Dykes said that in that situation, that the clock HAD started when the ball hit the rim, and he was questioning that. If that's the case, he would of course be correct.

JRutledge · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 10:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad
Isn't the CSU-UNLV game the same one where the refs let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU star (the 7 footer) during a loose ball, and he caught a nasty poke in the eye? I agreed with the CSU coach on that one - should have been a foul...

Just because someone gets hurt does not mean you have a foul or that one should have been called. And yes it was the game where the 7 footer did get poked in the eye. For the record I did not see the actual play, but saw most of the game after that incident.

Luther Head from Illinois, cracked a tooth against Indiana and the Indiana player ended up bleeding all over the floor. The officials called nothing there and seeing the replay I had to agree. Basically the players just ran into each other. And Mike Davis was going nuts and wanted something called.

Peace

just another ref · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 16, 2003, 11:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by TriggerMN
Maybe it was lack of sleep from staying up until 1 or 2 in the morning to watch all of these games, but I thought Jimmy Dykes said that in that situation, that the clock HAD started when the ball hit the rim, and he was questioning that. If that's the case, he would of course be correct.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, they went over it again in slow motion saying, it still hasn't started, it still hasn't started, boy that's a least a half second late. As the officials looked at the replay the announcers were confident that there would be a time adjustment, and there was. They put an extra .4 back on the clock. Go figure.

Adam · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 12:32am

I saw the play, including the replays. Didn't agree that it was an obvious foul. The poke in the eye was not where the foul occurred, IMHO. I thought, if anything, they should have got him for jumping on top of the guy. One guy's laying on the floor reaching for the ball, the other guy dives but lands on top of the first guy (I thought). It wasn't an obvious call, and could have gone either way (call or no-call.)

Adam

rockyroad · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 11:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
[B
Just because someone gets hurt does not mean you have a foul or that one should have been called. And yes it was the game where the 7 footer did get poked in the eye. For the record I did not see the actual play, but saw most of the game after that incident.

Peace [/B]

Hmmm...don't believe I ever said that the foul should have been called because the kid got hurt...I did say they let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU player... that's where the foul should have been called...the fact that the CSU player got hurt and had to leave the game just made the situation that much worse...a player lying on his back, holding the ball (which was loose before he dove on it), and another player jumps on top of him and we have no foul call...

JRutledge · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 12:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad
Isn't the CSU-UNLV game the same one where the refs let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU star (the 7 footer) during a loose ball, and he caught a nasty poke in the eye? I agreed with the CSU coach on that one - should have been a foul...

Well this sounds like a claim that a foul should have been called. Maybe you did not mean to imply that, but that is what I got out of your statement here.

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad

Hmmm...don't believe I ever said that the foul should have been called because the kid got hurt...I did say they let the UNLV player pile on top of the CSU player... that's where the foul should have been called...the fact that the CSU player got hurt and had to leave the game just made the situation that much worse...

Part of playing sports is that people get hurt sometimes. I admittedly did not see the play and cannot defend or be critical of the actual situations that took place. And because the player got hurt does not mean it had anything to do with the situation you just discribed.

Peace

ChuckElias · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 12:25pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge
Well this sounds like a claim that a foul should have been called. Maybe you did not mean to imply that, but that is what I got out of your statement here.

Jeff, Rocky did say that a foul should've been called. But not b/c of the eye-poke. He was saying it should've been called when the second player "piled on" the first.

Quote:

And because the player got hurt does not mean it had anything to do with the situation you just discribed.

Well, you got two players on the ground fighting for a ball and one of them pokes the other in the eye. Sounds to me like the injury has something to do with the situation we're talking about. Just my opinion, of course.

Chuck

rockyroad · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 01:02pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

Well this sounds like a claim that a foul should have been called. Maybe you did not mean to imply that, but that is what I got out of your statement here.

Part of playing sports is that people get hurt sometimes. I admittedly did not see the play and cannot defend or be critical of the actual situations that took place. And because the player got hurt does not mean it had anything to do with the situation you just discribed.

Peace

I would respond to your points here, if I had any clue what point you were trying to make!

I will try this again...One player lying on floor. Second player jumps on top of him. In process, finger is inserted into eye. But that injury has nothing to do with the play I described???

No the foul should not be called just because the CSU player got hurt...yes the foul should be called because we should not let players jump on top of each other...

JRutledge · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 01:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad

I would respond to your points here, if I had any clue what point you were trying to make!

The point is this. Just because someone got hurt does not mean that a foul should have been called or that it made things worse. Basketball is a game where contact occurs and it is allowed. If it was not, any touch would result in ejection immediately. It sounded to me that you were implying that the officials allowed this player to get poked in the eye. Well even if a foul was called on the player being poked in the eye, he still would have been poked in the eye. Our job is to call what takes place, not to prevent everything that can possibly happen on the basketball court.

Peace

rockyroad · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 17, 2003, 01:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by JRutledge

The point is this. Just because someone got hurt does not mean that a foul should have been called or that it made things worse. Basketball is a game where contact occurs and it is allowed. If it was not, any touch would result in ejection immediately. It sounded to me that you were implying that the officials allowed this player to get poked in the eye. Well even if a foul was called on the player being poked in the eye, he still would have been poked in the eye. Our job is to call what takes place, not to prevent everything that can possibly happen on the basketball court.

Peace

Again, I never said the poke in the eye was the foul...I'm not sure how you can justify the statement that it did not make things worse...not only have the refs allowed one player to jump on top of another, but as a result of that the team now loses it's best player and leading scorer in a very tight game...that most certainly does make the situation worse...anyway...how bout them BoSox???