Mike Kitts... B1G Championship

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You never did point out the rule that says it's legal to take two steps after the ball is gathered.

you must call traveling on every lay-up, don't you?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

you must call traveling on every lay-up, don't you?

Holy strawman.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

you must call traveling on every lay-up, don't you?

Legal layup: gather occurs just after player leaves his feet on the run. His right foot then comes down (pivot). His right foot then goes back up as his left comes down (1 step). He then jumps.

Calling this play two steps is not rules language, but fan/player/coach speak.

If the gather happens with that left foot on the floor, then that's his pivot, and he travels as soon as it hits the floor. And this is more accurately considered to be two steps than a legal layup.

Saying that taking two steps is, by rule, legal, is just flat out wrong.

Doing so in a post ripping an official for a judgment error is ironic.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Legal layup: gather occurs just after player leaves his feet on the run. His right foot then comes down (pivot). His right foot then goes back up as his left comes down (1 step). He then jumps.

Calling this play two steps is not rules language, but fan/player/coach speak.

If the gather happens with that left foot on the floor, then that's his pivot, and he travels as soon as it hits the floor. And this is more accurately considered to be two steps than a legal layup.

Saying that taking two steps is, by rule, legal, is just flat out wrong.

Doing so in a post ripping an official for a judgment error is ironic.

You forgot to add.......


Class Dismissed...

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by asdf

Assignment envy.....

OF COURSE I'd like to work that game (as would many other officials in this forum) - who wouldn't?.....if you don't want to work that game then there is something wrong with you.

I wouldn't call it envy....that would denote a negative jealousy...which is not accurate. I'd call it "assignment aspiration".

Of course I realize that the groupthink mentality has me as a "fan boy" and won't change your mentality, so....lah me!

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

OF COURSE I'd like to work that game (as would many other officials in this forum) - who wouldn't?.....if you don't want to work that game then there is something wrong with you.

I wouldn't call it envy....that would denote a negative jealousy...which is not accurate. I'd call it "assignment aspiration".

Of course I realize that the groupthink mentality has me as a "fan boy" and won't change your mentality, so....lah me!

I wouldn't want to work it, I'm not qualified.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Of course I realize that the groupthink mentality has me as a "fan boy" and won't change your mentality, so....lah me!

Don't be throwing that "groupthink" thing around until all the members of that "group" have weighed in on an issue...

Personally, I think you are wrong. I do think Kitts and crew missed a foul on that rebound play, but Izzo deserved the T, and Kitts had a fine tournament and will be working this weekend also...

Now we need to hear from M&MGuy...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Don't be throwing that "groupthink" thing around until all the members of that "group" have weighed in on an issue...

Personally, I think you are wrong. I do think Kitts and crew missed a foul on that rebound play, but Izzo deserved the T, and Kitts had a fine tournament and will be working this weekend also...

Now we need to hear from M&MGuy...

I think I forgot to do something last time I was here....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Of course I realize that the groupthink mentality has me as a "fan boy" and won't change your mentality, so....lah me!

I never consulted the group. I also have no idea whether or not you're an official. But using fanspeak (two steps) is a red flag. Or maybe it's a red herring.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

I haven't seen much of his games @ the Big Ten tourney, but what I have seen is not good:

wrongly wiping off good layup by Illinois player
calling goal-tend as lead in transition (Ill v Iowa)
letting MSU post player literally sit on Sullengers back while tipping & then gathering a rebound. (MSU v OSU).
not calling obvious foul on OSU player...which lead to him whacking Izzo (when Izzo complained)
blowing whistle to end first half when time had not expired...it was only the shot clock horn (he's gotta know there will be 2 horns in that situation)

I hope, for his sake, it gets better! Hate to think what else he has screwed up if I actually watched ALL of his game....

This was the post that generated the fanboy comment, and I may have to agree with The Group. (Note the capitalization, and hence, the greater importance associated with it. )

Your opinion. Without additional specific information, such as when the offense gathered the ball, we cannot agree or disagree. And your comment in a previous post about allowing 2 steps has no basis in the rules, as Snaqs has pointed out. This gives you either fanboy status, or, at best, shows your inexperience as an official.
Why is this wrong? If Mike was trailing the initial fast break players, he would have a great look at the goaltend.
Really? Literally? So the MSU player had his butt on Sullinger? Another comment that has fanboy written all over it, rather than speaking as an official.
Without describing the specific play, why should we take your word it was an "obvious foul"? As far as the T, if it was deserved, that's a good thing for Mike that he didn't let a (possible) bad call keep him from taking care of business. Whether or not a call or no call is bad does not give the coach an opportunity to act unsportsmanlike. A negative for Mike, in my mind, would be if he had allowed Izzo to go nuts without penalizing him.
This comment pretty much sums up your very likely fanboy status.

Finally, we have to take your word that the above examples were all in Mike's primary, that they were his calls, and that they really were incorrect.

I don't know how long you've been reading this forum, but we have fans come out of the woodwork at this time of year, using pretty much the terminology you've used here, to show how the refs have screwed over their team. Even some part-time officials show their full-time fanboy status this time of year. Or, some lower level officials like to simply crap on the higher level officials, because it makes them feel more important. We all screw up, even the Big Dogs. And we've discussed many of those plays. But your post shows either your inexperience, or your inner fanboy is leaking out.

Just my two cents.

(rocky, aren't you glad you asked? )

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This was the post that generated the fanboy comment, and I may have to agree with The Group. (Note the capitalization, and hence, the greater importance associated with it. )

Your opinion. Without additional specific information, such as when the offense gathered the ball, we cannot agree or disagree. And your comment in a previous post about allowing 2 steps has no basis in the rules, as Snaqs has pointed out. This gives you either fanboy status, or, at best, shows your inexperience as an official.
Why is this wrong? If Mike was trailing the initial fast break players, he would have a great look at the goaltend.
Really? Literally? So the MSU player had his butt on Sullinger? Another comment that has fanboy written all over it, rather than speaking as an official.
Without describing the specific play, why should we take your word it was an "obvious foul"? As far as the T, if it was deserved, that's a good thing for Mike that he didn't let a (possible) bad call keep him from taking care of business. Whether or not a call or no call is bad does not give the coach an opportunity to act unsportsmanlike. A negative for Mike, in my mind, would be if he had allowed Izzo to go nuts without penalizing him.
This comment pretty much sums up your very likely fanboy status.

Finally, we have to take your word that the above examples were all in Mike's primary, that they were his calls, and that they really were incorrect.

I don't know how long you've been reading this forum, but we have fans come out of the woodwork at this time of year, using pretty much the terminology you've used here, to show how the refs have screwed over their team. Even some part-time officials show their full-time fanboy status this time of year. Or, some lower level officials like to simply crap on the higher level officials, because it makes them feel more important. We all screw up, even the Big Dogs. And we've discussed many of those plays. But your post shows either your inexperience, or your inner fanboy is leaking out.

Just my two cents.

(rocky, aren't you glad you asked? )

In the true spirit of things, shouldn't this be posted twice? Oh, wait. The quote feature does that.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

In the true spirit of things, shouldn't this be posted twice? Oh, wait. The quote feature does that.

Shut up.

Shut up.

(Better?...)

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This was the post that generated the fanboy comment, and I may have to agree with The Group. (Note the capitalization, and hence, the greater importance associated with it. )

Your opinion. Without additional specific information, such as when the offense gathered the ball, we cannot agree or disagree. And your comment in a previous post about allowing 2 steps has no basis in the rules, as Snaqs has pointed out. This gives you either fanboy status, or, at best, shows your inexperience as an official.
Why is this wrong? If Mike was trailing the initial fast break players, he would have a great look at the goaltend.
Really? Literally? So the MSU player had his butt on Sullinger? Another comment that has fanboy written all over it, rather than speaking as an official.
Without describing the specific play, why should we take your word it was an "obvious foul"? As far as the T, if it was deserved, that's a good thing for Mike that he didn't let a (possible) bad call keep him from taking care of business. Whether or not a call or no call is bad does not give the coach an opportunity to act unsportsmanlike. A negative for Mike, in my mind, would be if he had allowed Izzo to go nuts without penalizing him.
This comment pretty much sums up your very likely fanboy status.

Finally, we have to take your word that the above examples were all in Mike's primary, that they were his calls, and that they really were incorrect.

I don't know how long you've been reading this forum, but we have fans come out of the woodwork at this time of year, using pretty much the terminology you've used here, to show how the refs have screwed over their team. Even some part-time officials show their full-time fanboy status this time of year. Or, some lower level officials like to simply crap on the higher level officials, because it makes them feel more important. We all screw up, even the Big Dogs. And we've discussed many of those plays. But your post shows either your inexperience, or your inner fanboy is leaking out.

Just my two cents.

(rocky, aren't you glad you asked? )

Look, if you are just going to ramble on endlessly with these meandering posts, we might have to think seriously about kicking you out of tHe gRoUp (note the oddly capitalized words which implies a secret code between group members).

Ok...I know:

Shutup.

[M&M Guy]

Thank you for saving me the time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Look, if you are just going to ramble on endlessly with these meandering posts, we might have to think seriously about kicking you out of tHe gRoUp (note the oddly capitalized words which implies a secret code between group members).

I thought I heard a buzzing sound in my ears.