Karl Hess tosses two NC State players

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

I'd bet good money against it. I doubt he will miss a single game for the rest of the season, let alone the post-season.

And this was an ACC Policy, not an NCAA Policy which might be expanded now because of these types of incidents.

BTW, Curtis Shaw got rid of a mascot and did not use GM to do so. I did not see that part of the ejection even focused on and I do not recall that it hurt him either.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And this was an ACC Policy, not an NCAA Policy which might be expanded now because of these types of incidents.

BTW, Curtis Shaw got rid of a mascot and did not use GM to do so. I did not see that part of the ejection even focused on and I do not recall that it hurt him either.

Peace

Don't know if this is considered in the policy, but the mascot is out there to make a spectacle of himself. He, and others, probably got a kick out of the whole thing. These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Don't know if this is considered in the policy, but the mascot is out there to make a spectacle of himself. He, and others, probably got a kick out of the whole thing. These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

For a moment they were "extinguished".

[Brad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

These distinguished alumni in the case at hand, not so much.

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Brad

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

I wish you were right.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Brad

They lost the "distinguished" part when they started acting like buffoons!!!

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

It doesn't. It's an assumption on my part. And a good one.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Brad

It doesn't. It's an assumption on my part. And a good one.

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

What's your point?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

We're the video that shows this? I'd like to see it.

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

So would that make it an 'informed' opinion or an 'uninformed' opinion?

Informed:

Originally Posted by fiasco

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Any adult who admittedly spends the majority of the game harping on the referees rather than cheering for their team is, by definition, a buffoon.

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

The whole 'us' verses 'them' is a ridiculous theme, especially when it's propogated from 'our' side. Leave that to the other side. When we, as officials, jump on this kind of bandwagon, calling people names without any real evidence is silly at best. It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

7-8 calls is what they admitted to. How does your experience convert that into reality?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The whole 'us' verses 'them' is a ridiculous theme, especially when it's propogated from 'our' side. Leave that to the other side. When we, as officials, jump on this kind of bandwagon, calling people names without any real evidence is silly at best. It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

I (and others) simply default to the officials until presented with sufficient contrary evidence. A guy with Hess' experience doesn't have rabbit ears, he doesn't toss "distinguished alumni" without good cause, and he doesn't go looking for trouble. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the guy who admits to sitting behind the table and loudly complaining about more than half a dozen calls in a single game.

Let's assume 8 calls in a 40 minute game. They're losing their minds every 5 minutes of game time? Once a game is a fan. Two or three, that's an annoyance. 7-8 (or more likely 10-12) is a distraction and a problem.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Ok, same adult admitted that "There were seven or eight different calls we were contesting and that no profanity was used." Is 7-8 calls considered the majority of the game?

And there is NO WAY that said individual might underestimate how severe his behavior was, right? Why do you expect that we should take him at his word?

Besides, I think that this statement by him speaks more to the type of fan he is: "We're not denying we were all over him, but I've been doing that every game I've been at since I retired," said Corchiani, who said he attends just about every NC State game. "That's homecourt advantage."

You know what? Grow up. You're in your 40s now. Quit acting like a petulant child. It was cool for me and my friends to yell at the referees when we were in high school. At some point it becomes no longer cool. You're well past that point. Start acting like an adult. The university holds you up as a "legend". Act like one.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

It just seems that people in our profession would, by default, pass judgement until real evidence, a detailed report, a video, something is produced to vindicate one side or the other and not go by assumption.

You don't always need video to come to a conclusion — there is tons of other evidence. If your kid tells you something and an adult that you trust tells you a different story who do you believe? Do you need video evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion? Of course not.

Karl Hess didn't get to where he is by having rabbit ears and kicking people out of games willy-nilly. If he stopped the ESPN nationally-televised game to have a fan removed it was for a damn good reason. I don't need to see the video of their behavior to prove it. In fact, the video of them immediately leaving is enough to tell me that they knew they had been caught —*just like the look the dog gives you when you ask him if he ate the steak on the counter. You don't need video to know that he did.

Finally, I think that officials take so much crap from coaches, fans, commentators, etc. that there is a natural tendency to stick together in the one place we can —*with each other. Karl Hess has been unfairly thrown under the bus by the AD, ESPN, sports commentators, etc. I promise you if the two fans that had been kicked out were just your average everyday fans this would have NEVER even been a news story.