End of Game - State Tourney
 

Waukee Beats Mason City 49-47 - KIMT.com ? Iowa & Minnesota Together

End of 1st round of state game....gets interesting at the 1:00 mark of the video. Hard to decipher travel/no travel because you cant pause the video. goofy player. What do you think about the last two highlights?

Meh, she let go of the ball before she hit the ground so no travel there, but from what you can see it's certainly possible that she got happy feet before she started falling.

At end of the game clip, left foot is pivot to start the dribble (travel) and looks like a legal jump stop, no travel. On the earlier travel call in the lane, it appears that black 40 touches the ball, hence, causes a loose ball, no travel.

1) no travel in lane
2) game winner......pretty obvious travel to me.

Here is the last drive from a different angle.

Waukee's Amy Nestingen's game-winning basket. - YouTube

Defender #10 swipes at ball and we probably aren't having this discussion.

Looked a little cleaner in this video but still a travel to me, especially if they called one in paint a few seconds earlier.

Travel on the last drive. Pretty blatant and obvious, to me.

No travel on the first one.

Travel on the second without a doubt.

New video, pretty clear travel.

Agreed. I thought the home player traveled stepping back for the three earlier in the game.

Really? Where? Don't see anything. You would have called that?

I doubt I'd pick that nit.

Frankly, I watched it once, at regular speed, with a netbook. I could be wrong.

With these videos, we watch over and over and dissect everything, maybe it is a travel to the enth degree, to tag on to Rich's post, I wouldn't be a plumber here(not that your being one here, just making a general statement about these calls)

The one at the end, though, was like Fred Flintstone driving a car.

Here's another one-watch the beginning of this video for a count it/don't count it at the end of a championship game out in SoCal last night.Call on the floor was count it,game went to 2OT (Mark-obviously not one of your games :D :D) and white won.Watching this live last night I thought it was no good-what say you?
Laguna Hills wins title in 2OT thriller | laguna, hills, ziering - Final - OC Varsity

The trail was right the first time. I wonder why she let herself get talked out of the right call?

What Rich said...SCal, you were there? Walk us thru what happened, please. The T was waving the shot off right away, so how did they end up scoring it?

I wasn't there (Worked until six and wouldn't have made it for any games-Dang that SoCal traffic) but plan on going Saturday.Just watched it again on video and it looks like the HC of black got in pretty close to the official's huddle.Here's the link which shows more of the tableside discussion and the last possesion of regulation-
CIF-SS (3aa): Laguna Hills 59, Alemany 55 (2OT)

Speed the tape ahead to 1 Hr 12 Mins 35 Seconds for the final possesion of regulation and subsequent discussion of whether or not the basket should've counted.I had the audio turned off so I don't know what was said or not.

Wow.

Not even close and if The Rookie is correct in the other thread, why in the hell is the lead adding anything to this conversation, unless of course the trail needed help.

2 unrelated questions, if you don't mind.

Isn't there sufficient contact (observe better in the first video) on the 3-point shooter to have a foul?

5 minute OT?

BLydic-
They initally put up 5 minutes on the streaming footage then ended up correcting it during the first OT.

Wow-I just saw the video of the trail's initial wave off on the play I posted about.The trail comes in with a clear and confident wave off and just allows herself to be talked into a count it call.Here's a clip of video with her wave off-http://www.ocvarsity.com/video/?videoId=1481976578001&play=now

This mostly speaks about my area, but I was a little taken aback with the post-game interview of a high school kid from the losing side. No TV station in this neck of the woods would touch that. Newspapers? Sure. TV? Nope.

This is why this situation upsets me....:mad:

What would C and lead have seen to be 110% sure it was good? Very poor officiating and at the highest level. Looks like three U2's on game

Lead appears to be sure it was good as she charges out after shot. C seems to want no part of anything in discussion. I'm sure lead is R on the game. What a shame.

Edit: Oops, white eventually won, there is a God!

No

Are you talking about the girls game in the initial video, before my thread got taken over? With the girl crying and blaming herself?

OP Comment: I think the first play was not a travel as players were going after the ball. If anything she did not have control of the ball.

The last play was a travel. The first hop step was OK, but then she hopped again and that was a travel.

CIF Last Second shot: Surprised this was missed. This is why we need a last second shot on all TV games at that level. Too much at stake IMO. The lead should not be giving information on this play in my opinion.

Peace

Agreed. She's in position in plenty of time. Shot's long gone before contact, and the shooter is back on the floor. Either is sufficient for letting this go.

In the second play, what should the T do if they KNOW the bucket should not count? Can the T overule both of the other officials? The T obviously didn't feel that strongly about her waive off if she let them talk her out of it.

And if I'm white's coach, I'm having a discussion with the girl that looks like she tries to take a charge on the half court shot. What are you doing? Same with the girl that reaches in in the backcourt.

And on the OP, no travel on white, but black stole the ball anyway; and then a travel on black on the first step. Probably a no call on her jump stop at the basket.

If the officials disagree, it's up to the R to decide.

That's the one. It appears that that tournament has actual press conferences. We certainly do that around here for colleges, but not for high schools.

As a result, I admittedly got a little uneasy about watching that aforementioned girl. I think that stage is too big for kids dealing with big losses like that. Here, we just televise the winners' post-game.

So if the T isn't the R, it would be up to the T to state their case persuasively enough to have the R back them then. Good to know.

Local team....as in the TV station is in Mason City, losing team. Been interviewing them all year. No worries....she is a Junior, committed to Iowa State, and have 3 returning starters and a nice bench. Should get back to State next year.

Disagree with all of your points

Agreed, a few schools around here don't allow players to be even quoted.

I thought both girls did a terrific job in front of camera

Fullor you disagree with all of my points?

Looks like you agree with a couple.

well, almost.....

Bravo ...
 

Agree. Schools, coaches, and parents, of both girls should be very proud. Sports are fun, but there have to be winners, and losers. Both of these girls were winners on the big stage.

I disagree with this. This is the T's call all the way. No R has the right to overrule a last second shot, in my opinion.

While I would generally agree with this in principle, the rules disagree....

While 2-6 says they don't generally have such a right, 2-5-3 gives them that right in this specific situation.

Rule 2-6 Officials' Authority
No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties.

Rule 2-5 Referee's Duties During Game
ART. 3 . . . Decide whether a goal shall count if the officials disagree.

I just know that in my games I would never, ever think that I can jump in, say I disagree, then say, "I'm the R and since we disagree I'm going to overrule you."

Career ender, or at least it should be.

Where's the 'like' button?
 

+1

You're on a roll...
 

+1

I could only really see this happening in a two man game where it's so obvious to everyone in attendance that the umpire missed the call..bad enough to where the R is going to come in and give him information. Then again, in a situation like that, I would hope that the other official could be convinced.

I think this was put in place to settle arguments on the court. If the R refuses to believe my information on a call like this, I will make sure to avoid him in the future. If he disagrees with a rule I give him and applies it incorrectly, then I am calling my assigner.
I'd like to think that a partner would have my back on any judgement calls, especially my R. This is an example of being big timed and not trusting your partner.

The only time I can imagine this reasonably happening is on a turnover/transition play where the R is the lead and right with the ball, looking through the play, while the trail is a LONG way from the play and can't see through the play yets makes a decision that is clearly wrong.

I'd hope that the trail would yield to the lead on such plays as a matter of practice where only the lead has a decent look but, if they don't, the R has the rules direction to make it right.

In fact, this sort of play is part of my pregame.....trail only has the last second shot from the frontcourt when the trail has made it to the frontcourt, if it is a full court pass to a last-second shot in the frontcourt, the lead should take it.

Ahhh...The Sunday morning quarterback. We all know its easier when you can replay over and over, but when you are there, in the thick of things, its tough to judge the angles the officials had.
That said, the player in black traveled.....:)

My interpretation,

The step back at 1:17 ??? How?? She catches with right foot on floor and never lifts this foot. She could have jumped off of this foot and landed on 2 feet as an option.

More like the trail (U2) waves off the shot, the Lead (U1) runs in counting the basket. The R, who has no idea either way, comes and says it was the Trails call to make and that's what we are sticking with.

Please read my follow up post.

I didn't say it should be used lightly.

Sure, but the problem is that this extends to a call where the R is one of the two parties.

In football, I'm the white hat and I have the rules support and the custom and practice so that I can overturn just about any decision made by a crew member. And yet it's the one "power" I just about never use. I think last season I had one situation where two other crew members disagreed and I had to mediate by asking the right questions, listening, telling the one that we're going with the other's decision, etc. It's not a pleasant situation even when I'm wearing a special hat.

In basketball, the powers granted to the R should stay away unless there's a disagreement between the two Us. If my T says it's no good and it's her responsibility, then the only way *any* official should come in is if it's so wrong that not coming in would be a travesty. And then both officials should be coming to the T anyway.

Otherwise, we start getting five second calls from halfcourt on an end line throw-in. :D

Forget all of the travel decisions and whether the try was released in time, there is a much bigger issue here--two of the players for the team in white in the Wisconsin game are wearing different colored headbands! :D
Very obvious when they are sitting next to each other on the bench during the time-out. One has red and the other has black.

In the second play I can't figure out why they even put themselves in this situation. Why not inbound the ball from the other side of the lane and give C the last shot. It's much easier for C to get into good position to see this, especially when a long inbound pass is likely.

Good catch on headbands! The fact the crew didn't catch this isn't surprising given what we've seen on video, what is shocking is that Iowa state big wigs who surely were in attendance and monitoring this game were asleep at the wheel. I know this wouldn't happen in Illinois and I'm sure your state too.

That wasn't in Wisconsin. The girls playoffs don't start here until tomorrow night. My 50 point blowout awaits. :D

Snaqs.....aren't you in Iowa?

Not anymore. Moved to the mountains 6 years ago.

When In "Rome" ...
 

Isn't "Rome" built on seven mountains?

No one else has issue with them not putting C opposite table to give him the buzzer?

I don't...why would you want them to do this? In NFHS, opposite the table has the clock, so why do we need to fudge around with our positioning to get the C opposite as opposed to the T being opposite?

No issue whatsoever.

Perfectly Legal
 

In Iowa, we follow this adaptation:

Wristbands and Headwear - We will be adhering to Rules 3-5-3 and 3-6 regarding wristbands and headwear with the following exceptions. Anything worn in the hair (including headbands) must be soft and unadorned but maybe any color or multi-colored and do not have to match for all teammates. Bobby pins 2” or less will also be allowed. Wristbands may be any color or multi-colored and do not have to match for all teammates, but must be moisture-absorbing material. Lance Armstrong bracelets, rubber bands, etc., are still illegal as they are not moisture absorbing.

Is this an exception to NFHS rules adopted by the state overall? Did I comprehended that correctly?

Yes. I remember reading this before, too, but it had slipped my mind.

I wish the Fed would follow suit.

With the color of the wristbands/headbands, yeah. I always enforce it but I could care less what color they have on.

However I don't like allowing the bobby pins. The day one of those catches a kid in the eye is the day the state association gets sued, along with, possibly, the officials on the game.

Because c is able to better position himself. Hes much closer to the action on a long inbound and in a much better position to get a good look on the putback near the bucket.

It's not fudging anything, its after a to following a made bucket they can put it on either side of the lane they want. Why wouldn't they chose a side that gives the best look at the last shot?

And what if the crew chooses to put the C opposite, but the ensuing play goes table side? How did that help?

I guess I'm just not seeing the need to move the crew around for any coverage purposes here.

There were 4.5 seconds left. Even if the inbound pass goes table side the C is still in better position to get a look than trail. That's why its his PCA if there is backcourt pressure. In a situation in which there is going to be an extended possession I agree there is little advantage, but with 4.5 and a long inbound pass likely I can think of few situations in which C doesn't have a clear advantage. Honestly and respectfully I don't understand how this is even debatable.

First, I clearly didn't know the correct state in which the contest was played.
Thank you for the insight into what Iowa does. Obviously different from most other places. I wonder if this game started with a coin toss or a jump ball.
Lastly, I hope people understood the lack of seriousness in my initial post.

Nevada, I believe if I understood it. Everyone else got it. ;)

All The Way Up ...
 

Watched a few of my friends in a state tournament game last night. Two players on Green had on, what I thought were, tights. I don't know if the officials ignored it, or didn't see it, or asked, and discovered that they were actually long socks, or "sleeves", and I didn't ask. I've seen more tights this year than ever before, both on the court, and in the officials' dressing room. I wish that the NFHS would address this issue with either a rule change, or a Point of Emphasis. I don't like being a "Fashion Police" official when otherwise outstanding officials just ignore the tights, or don't know the rule. I really don't like it when I start the game with the coach thinking, "This is one of those "rulebook" guys. He can rule on equipment issues, but can he call the block/charge?".

My guess is NFHS and NCAA will address the tights within a year or two. The way both were so Type A - especially the NCAA - about the headbands and wristbands when those restrictions when into effect I can't see this being allowed to linger for too long.

Of course, as with everything else, it's up to use to handle it properly. In the '10-11 season I worked with HSV officials on two separate occasions who thought it was okay for players on a team wearing white jerseys with orange/black piping to wear orange undershirts because it was a school color. I thought I'd gone crazy for a minute.

I did see the smiley face regarding headbands, yet for a state tourney it did surprise me, and the follow up explains that colors by Alexander Julian are okey dokey in Iowa.

I think I would rather have the T opposite in that situation - the long inbounds pass - because then the C and the L can handle any contact, and the T has nothing to do but head up court and handle the clock/last second shot. That makes more sense to me than the C having to worry about contact, a possible violation (travel, illegal dribble), AND the clock on the last second shot. So - respectfully also - I honestly don't see the advantage that you are seeing.

Que sera, sera...

Must I Turn In My Fashion Police Badge And Service Revolver ???
 

My second worst mistake of this past year. I'm the umpire watching the White girls warming up. There are a few different color headbands. As they pass by me in their layup lines I tell each offender that they all have to have the same color headband on. Eventually the captain comes over to me and politely asks about legal headband colors, and the difference between headbands and hair control devices. She politely asks if they can all wear gold headbands, says that gold is a school color, and that there is gold piping on her white jersey. I tell her that the only legal headband colors for her team are white, black, beige, or the predominate color of her jersey, which is white. She explains that other officials have allowed gold headbands all season long. Not me. They all have to be the same color, white, black, or beige.

For some reason, it dawned on me a few days later that I was dead wrong. Wasn't this the old rule? Man, I hate it when they keep changing the rules on me. It's like a moving target. Now, where are my glasses?

67-15. I was pretty close.