Uncalled Cheap Shots

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I don't think you've been reading very closely. Most of the early posts did not take that tone at all, respected the fact that we were only looking at a few seconds of a game, and restricted the commentary to what the poster would have done in the same situation.

Are you defending the officiating that we see in the video, or just offering knee-jerk firebacks to the critical comments posted in this thread?

I'm not criticizing the early comments in the thread. I thought they were spot on.

I'm not defending the officiating in the video one bit.

I'm criticizing some of the comments that have come late in the thread that have said something to the effect of "a competent official would have fouled his a$$ out long before it got to foul #5."

It's officiating machismo, IMO, based on a lot of assumption and very little fact.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

That's exactly my point. There's so much not shown on the video, yet everyone with a whistle knows EXACTLY what they would have done in the context of the game overall. Frankly, it's just delusional.

It's not delusional at all to look at play #5 and know that it is a flagrant foul and know without a doubt that you would have called a flagrant foul on that play. It's really easy, actually. That play needs, nor deserves, any context.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Can we say for certainty what happened, and therefore say what should have happened in the overall context of the game? No, I don't believe we can.

We aren't trying to prove a court case beyond a reasonable doubt, we are having a discussion about a basketball game and the officiating, or lack thereof.

Originally Posted by fiasco

But, if it makes you feel better to say you would have fouled his a$$ out, go for it.

I would have fouled his a$$ out.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Brad

It's not delusional at all to look at play #5 and know that it is a flagrant foul and know without a doubt that you would have called a flagrant foul on that play. It's really easy, actually. That play needs, nor deserves, any context.

I've never argued that play #5 shouldn't have been called a flagrant foul.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Anybody who believes for a second that what is on this tape is the only "actionable behavior" committed by #34 or that doesn't believe competent officials would have gotten rid of #34 long before foul #5 either hasn't been doing this very long or is being a contrarian.

I agree with you, but some people think they are expert officials...when armed with a keyboard and mouse.

Originally Posted by Brad

Because a competent official would have fouled his a$$ out of the game long before foul #5!!

+1

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I love how people keep talking about these "edited" clips as if somebody used camera tricks to make it look like #34's fouls were worse than they were...Let's be real folks. There is enough video evidence there to show how #34 was playing defense and what he was bringing to the court that night. And regardless of what else is on the game tape, nothing changes the fact that in the exact situations shown on tape, the officials were incompotent in their duties IMO. In fact, I'm quite confident that the rest of the tape could only lead to a lower opinion of the competency of these officials as it likely would point out other opportunities they missed to get #34 out of the game or control rough play in general.

But we can keep playing this game and acting like this video is some sort of fictional short story and not what it is. Indisputable video evidence of officials not properly using the tools at their disposal to control rough, and dangerous, play.

+1

Originally Posted by fiasco

Or we could just keep making blanket judgments about how awesome we all would have been at preventing any bad stuff from happening if we had been doing the game, because we're all so much more awesome than the officials in the video.

Well...through hard work and blessings I would be able to get into better position than at least two of them. As far as a blanket statement, I think most of us would do a better job. Some of these are so blatant that intentional fouls would leave our mouths open in shock. On two of these calls (IMO), the officials are two steps below what should have been called - they called common when they should have been flagrant. They are fortunate that the other team didn't retaliate. Or, the other coach could have really been a jerk...and what would they do about it? They already displayed the intestinal fortitude (you know what I really mean) to call what is right. Honestly, how long have you been doing this and have you ever had a situation where you had to throw a kid out of a game? What a Fiasco!

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Honestly, how long have you been doing this and have you ever had a situation where you had to throw a kid out of a game?

If I told you, I seriously doubt it would have any impact on how you view me, so what's the point?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I agree with you, but some people think they are expert officials...when armed with a keyboard and mouse.

I'm not quite sure who you're talking about, but I certainly know I have a hell of a lot to work on as an official.

But you know what they say about when you assume...

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Or we could just keep making blanket judgments about how awesome we all would have been at preventing any bad stuff from happening if we had been doing the game, because we're all so much more awesome than the officials in the video.

It's not a blanket statement nor does it have anything to do with me or saying how awesome I am.

It's clear that on the specific plays shown the officials did not close down, did not immediately talk to #34 (other than good naturedpat on the backside at the FT line), and did not get together to at least discuss the possibility of upgrading to intentional or flagrant.

The video evidence also makes it very clear to me that #34 did not come to play basketball that night and that myself and most of the officials I work with would have found opportunities to foul him out of the game before foul #5 took place. I don't know these officials, maybe they are top rate quality officials most of the time.

But on this night, on these plays, they were incompotent IMO. And that's why this video is being shown at association meetings across the country as a training resource.

So you can call it officiating machismo or make all of the flippant statements you want. It doesnt change the fact that what is on this tape is an example, and is being used as such, of incompotent officiating in regards to controlling rough play.

[Welpe]

I mentioned this on the forum last season but I had a very similar play to #5 where I let my partner talk me out of assessing a flagrant foul and instead went with intentional. I knew I was wrong leaving the gym that night and I know if I ever see that again, I'm sticking with my call and tossing that player.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm not criticizing the early comments in the thread. I thought they were spot on.

I'm not defending the officiating in the video one bit.

I'm criticizing some of the comments that have come late in the thread that have said something to the effect of "a competent official would have fouled his a$$ out long before it got to foul #5."

It's officiating machismo, IMO, based on a lot of assumption and very little fact.

I'm all for officials. I've got the back of my officiating brethren. No one is saying that they are better than these officials. Just because you say, "Here is what *I* would have done in the situation..." does not mean that you are comparing yourself to them.

The fact is that these officials did a poor job. Period. It's not really even debatable. That doesn't make them bad officials or people. It just means that in this game they did a poor job.

It's easy for me (and others) to say that they would have fouled #34 out. Why? Because we have been there. We've had "that guy" in our game. Many times. And we took care of him. Maybe not early on in our careers, before we knew any better, but as we gained experience. We learned what to look for to avoid problems in our games, so when we see a guy like #34 he sticks out like a sore thumb and we think, "That's our guy."

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Brad

I'm all for officials. I've got the back of my officiating brethren. No one is saying that they are better than these officials. Just because you say, "Here is what *I* would have done in the situation..." does not mean that you are comparing yourself to them.

I'm honestly not trying to be flippant when I say you need to re-examine your definition of the word "comparing."

The fact is that these officials did a poor job. Period. It's not really even debatable.

Once again, who is saying that's debatable??

It's easy for me (and others) to say that they would have fouled #34 out. Why? Because we have been there. We've had "that guy" in our game. Many times. And we took care of him. Maybe not early on in our careers, before we knew any better, but as we gained experience. We learned what to look for to avoid problems in our games, so when we see a guy like #34 he sticks out like a sore thumb and we think, "That's our guy."

So have I. Saturday, in fact, I called two quick fouls on Red #32 because he was getting too physical in the post for my liking even after having a talk with him in the free throw lane. He sat for the rest of the game.

This isn't my first rodeo.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

That's exactly my point. There's so much not shown on the video, yet everyone with a whistle knows EXACTLY what they would have done in the context of the game overall. Frankly, it's just delusional.

I'm not saying it's unlikely that, with different officials on the floor, #34 wouldn't have been in a position to commit foul #5. I'm merely saying it's foolish to sit here and say "Well, this is absolutely what should have happened" when we don't have 2% out of 100% of what happened in the game.

Can we guess what happened? Yes.

Can we assume what happened? Certainly.

Can we say for certainty what happened, and therefore say what should have happened in the overall context of the game? No, I don't believe we can.

But, if it makes you feel better to say you would have fouled his a$$ out, go for it.

Would it make a difference to you to know that these clips were all from the first 10 minutes of game play?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I mentioned this on the forum last season but I had a very similar play to #5 where I let my partner talk me out of assessing a flagrant foul and instead went with intentional. I knew I was wrong leaving the gym that night and I know if I ever see that again, I'm sticking with my call and tossing that player.

I know a guy like that: never, ever, wants to toss a player (or a coach in baseball). I can understand having a high threshold, promoting participation, etc. But never? C'mon, man!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

That's exactly my point. There's so much not shown on the video, yet everyone with a whistle knows EXACTLY what they would have done in the context of the game overall. Frankly, it's just delusional.

I'm not saying it's unlikely that, with different officials on the floor, #34 wouldn't have been in a position to commit foul #5. I'm merely saying it's foolish to sit here and say "Well, this is absolutely what should have happened" when we don't have 2% out of 100% of what happened in the game.

Can we guess what happened? Yes.

Can we assume what happened? Certainly.

Can we say for certainty what happened, and therefore say what should have happened in the overall context of the game? No, I don't believe we can.

But, if it makes you feel better to say you would have fouled his a$$ out, go for it.

You have done this before, but you are missing the point again. All I said was I am sure there were other plays out there that would have produced a possibility for fouls. I did not say or even advocate that I would have definitely fouled the kid out before many of these plays. Just saying that not all fouls have to be hard or borderline flagrant/intentional to get a player out of the game. That is really all I am suggesting and since we do not see other situations that would have been obvious as to interaction with opponents, FT lineups and other aspects where a player like this would have revealed more things to make judgments on his overall behavior.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm honestly not trying to be flippant when I say you need to re-examine your definition of the word "comparing."

Maybe you need to look up the word "diplomacy".

You come off as abrasive and hostile.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have done this before, but you are missing the point again. All I said was I am sure there were other plays out there that would have produced a possibility for fouls. I did not say or even advocate that I would have definitely fouled the kid out before many of these plays.

I hear what you're saying. The majority of the post you just quoted wasn't directed at you specifically.