Uncalled Cheap Shots

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

On first viewing, I had #2 and #6 as common fouls, #5 as flagrant, and the rest intentional.

I would've been looking quite closely at 34 and 42 and they wouldn't have played a lot of minutes -- either after getting ejected or picking up a few quick fouls.

No real urgency with the officials -- on hard fouls like that you'd expect at least 2 of the officials to close distance quickly to make sure things don't escalate. But here, nothing.

I don't think I've posted in this marathon of a thread, but I agree with you. 2 and 6 were common fouls, 5 was flagrant, and the others intentional.

I can't believe how nonchalant the officials are during this. On #5, an intentional isn't even called, and non one closes down after the shooter hits the floor. The Trail just puts his hands on his hips and stands there like he has nothing better to do. I close down on stuff far more tame than this.

As big of a turd as #34 is, and how much of a moron his coach might be, the officials did a horrible job managing this game and situation. Foul #5 wouldn't have happened with competent officials on the floor, because #34 would be on the bench already. Unbelievable.

[dsqrddgd909]

The videos were part of our State Mandated area meetings yesterday.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

The videos were part of our State Mandated area meetings yesterday.

And what did they suggest a proper ruling to be?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

And what did they suggest a proper ruling to be?

In Southern Nevada we covered the video too. Our desired rulings:

1. Intentional
2. Common
3. Flagrant
4. Intentional
5. Flagrant
6. Common

I'm going by memory to recall the fouls.

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

And what did they suggest a proper ruling to be?

Juggling,

No suggestions were made, we reviewed them as a group. Most of the folks present thought 5 was fragrant and 3 could have been. 2 and 6 were common, 1 and 4 intentional.

The discussion centered around what the crew should have done during the game (get together, possibly talk to the coaches and/or the players) and what the should have done after.

[JugglingReferee]

Update:

WIAA satisfied with school, referee reaction to Connell foul footage

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Update:

WIAA satisfied with school, referee reaction to Connell foul footage

Not sure what this means? Were the the officials contrite as to their handling of the game?

Does the WIAA absolve them or are they saying they handled the game correctly?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Not sure what this means? Were the the officials contrite as to their handling of the game?

Does the WIAA absolve them or are they saying they handled the game correctly?

As I read it, WIAA is saying the officials learned their lesson. Not quite absolution, but they're not pursuing the matter either.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Update:

WIAA satisfied with school, referee reaction to Connell foul footage

During the Connell game, the referees were shocked at what they saw, which is why they hesitated on making any major calls early on in the game.

He who hesitates is lost.

Especially in officiating.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Brad

During the Connell game, the referees were shocked at what they saw, which is why they hesitated on making any major calls early on in the game.

He who hesitates is lost.

Especially in officiating.

I agree. That's why experience is so valuable.

[Kingsman1288]

Originally Posted by Brad

During the Connell game, the referees were shocked at what they saw, which is why they hesitated on making any major calls early on in the game.

He who hesitates is lost.

Especially in officiating.

I can MAYBE understand hesitating one time in the beginning, but to hesitate on all of them over the course of the game? That's awful, and the fact that it was used as an excuse is even worse.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Foul #5 wouldn't have happened with competent officials on the floor, because #34 would be on the bench already. Unbelievable.

I still don't understand this comment.

How would #34 have been on the bench, based solely on the information we have from the video?

Foul #1, you said you have an intentional. That's not automatically sending #34 to the bench.

Foul #2 is not even committed by #34.

Foul #3 you've again said is intentional. Two intentionals doesn't give you an automatic seat on the bench. So #34 is still out there.

Foul #4, again, isn't committed by #34.

So, #34 is still on the floor. Even if you had been calling the game, and had called what you said you would call in this situation, he's still on the floor.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I still don't understand this comment.

How would #34 have been on the bench, based solely on the information we have from the video?

Foul #1, you said you have an intentional. That's not automatically sending #34 to the bench.

Foul #2 is not even committed by #34.

Foul #3 you've again said is intentional. Two intentionals doesn't give you an automatic seat on the bench. So #34 is still out there.

Foul #4, again, isn't committed by #34.

So, #34 is still on the floor. Even if you had been calling the game, and had called what you said you would call in this situation, he's still on the floor.

I didn't say anything about automatically sending him to the bench. If he's a turd like this and the coach isn't going to take him out, find a way to get him out. Usually kids like this will dig their own grave and be done pretty quickly.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I didn't say anything about automatically sending him to the bench. If he's a turd like this and the coach isn't going to take him out, find a way to get him out. Usually kids like this will dig their own grave and be done pretty quickly.

Even with "competent" officials out on the floor, there's nothing to say that there were any other opportunities to get him out of the game.

I understand the general sentiment you're trying to get across (get rid of troublemakers), but based on the information available to us in the video, I'm not entirely convinced #34 wouldn't have still been in the game for #5 if any of us here on this board would have been working that game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Even with "competent" officials out on the floor, there's nothing to say that there were any other opportunities to get him out of the game.

I understand the general sentiment you're trying to get across (get rid of troublemakers), but based on the information available to us in the video, I'm not entirely convinced #34 wouldn't have still been in the game for #5 if any of us here on this board would have been working that game.

I guarantee you these were not the only times in the game where he had contact or showed bad ability. I am sure the kid tried to set a screen or play in the post or run to a spot. Somewhere he was doing something unskilled and I doubt this was the only possibility for fouls. These players do not just have moments and then go back to showing great skill.

Peace