Uncalled Cheap Shots

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I would love to see the rest of the game on film to confirm that or to show how long he played.

Peace

As would I and the rest of us. That would tell us a lot.

I'm just always hesitant about making blanket statements like "any competent official would have had him on the bench" based on a few short edited clips from a 32-minute basketball game.

Stuff happens, even with the most competent officials in the world out on the court.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

As would I and the rest of us. That would tell us a lot.

I'm just always hesitant about making blanket statements like "any competent official would have had him on the bench" based on a few short edited clips from a 32-minute basketball game.

Stuff happens, even with the most competent officials in the world out on the court.

Well I get your point of view, but based on what you have told everyone here about your experience, I would not expect you to have the games under your belt to know how to recognize what happens in many situations which is the point others have made. And we do not even know what other plays took place in the game involving the other team which would also change how long the game would be called as well.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And we do not even know what other plays took place in the game involving the other team which would also change how long the game would be called as well.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

And I wasn't responding to you based on what you said to me. So take some of your own advice for once.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by fiasco

As would I and the rest of us. That would tell us a lot.

I'm just always hesitant about making blanket statements like "any competent official would have had him on the bench" based on a few short edited clips from a 32-minute basketball game.

Stuff happens, even with the most competent officials in the world out on the court.

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.

I'm sure there is tape of the rest of this 38-37 contest that will show #34 moving his feet beautifully, going above the rim to block shots, and gracefully executing pick and rolls.

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

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.

[mbyron]

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.

I don't think you've been reading very closely. Most posts have not taken 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?

[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

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."