Mike Kitts... B1G Championship
 

First he T's up Izzo after missing a rebounding foul, then he blows his whistle thinking the shot clock buzzer was the horn at the end of the half.

Extremely poor awareness...not to mention he simply can't keep up with the speed of the game anymore--frankly, I'm surprised he earned today's assignment.

Why would you blame the *lead* for "missing" a rebounding foul?

Because it was right in front of him, in the paint. Is it possible he was screened by someone, sure... the larger gaffe is the shot clock/game clock lack of awareness, IMO.

There were also bodies in between him and the players getting tangled up. And the contact was fairly marginal.

What gets me in this game is Valentine's extremely late foul calls. He's literally waiting to see if the ball goes in and calling the foul 3-4 seconds after it occurs.

I would argue that it would be a bigger gaffe to miss a foul, as you say he did, than to have an IW when the two horns would have been less than a second apart.

Agree to disagree. I've never understood why officials even feel the need to whistle at the end of a period, unless there's a shot to wave off... if I'm making $2500+ to do a game, I'm going to know there's .9 difference between game and shot clock at the end of a half.

Wow...Mike Kitts is having a bad weekend!
 

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....

I agree with this. The IW was a pretty big gaffe, IMO.

I think the T was to Izzo because Izzo wanted a DOG for the OSU player passing the ball to a ref after a made OSU basket.
And Izzo did get the stop sign.

Why? As far as IW's go, this one was as minor as it gets. Less that a second until the end of the half, there was clear team control when the IW happened, and quite frankly, Ohio State was already heading off the floor for halftime, maybe they thought the same thing that Kitts did?

Except that it put MSU at a disadvantage by allowing a better scoring than they would have if he was paying attention...

The real problem is it illustrated his lack of awareness that has occurred ALL weekend! You CANNOT perform this poorly and still get the Campionship Game assignment.

If you are to be believed about earlier this tournament......apparently you can!

Goaltendng, Basket Interference ...
 

I haven't seen the video, but around these parts, this can be, in a few circumstances, acceptable. Remember we're 99% two person here in Connecticut. Breakaway, transition situation, one official, lead, and a few players in the new frontcourt, new trail is deep in the backcourt, lead hasn't reached the endline yet, and is 100% sure. Blow the whistle, look to make sure your partner, the new trail, is still way back in the play, he doesn't have a whistle, and then count the basket. Usually pregamed.

Yep, it's that time of year.

I don't think 2 cents is a troll, but I do miss JR saying "piss off fanboy" and "Lah me". :cool:

Are you saying the Lead should never call GT?

He is saying that his opinion is worth 2 cents.

Or a good old "STFU" from Dan.

Absolutely.

Because I point out that Kitts is having a bad weekend, this is where you go personal? Interesting....

I agree with your thoughts....however these are, theoretically, the best officials in the league working in a 3-man crew @ the Big Ten tourney.

For once, an accurate post - if for no other reason than you can effectively read my username. You've just proved yourself more accurate than Mike Kitts was this weekend.

Your two cents on Kitts is, well, irrelevant. Kitts worked more B1G games this year than any other official. Appears the powers that be (including the coaches) want him on the floor. And Valentine and Wymer, too.

If Bill Veeck were alive today, I imagine he would revise his famous quote about Spring to say:

"The true harbinger of spring is not crocuses or swallows returning to Capistrano, but the sound of howling NCAA basketball fanboys."

BWOOP BWOOP BWOOP BWOOP
http://www.mineful.com/img/red-siren.jpg
FANBOY ALERT .... FANBOY ALERT

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

Don't know why, but I always think he looks like a turtle
 

http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/dedm...background.jpghttp://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...HzE_A-tT3FJQRJ

http://us.cdn3.123rf.com/168nwm/yaya...385-turtle.jpghttp://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...xQFVXPAZGM3PCu

perhaps because he runs kind of hunched over with his back bent and head & neck extending forward.

Assignment envy.....

channeling your inner- BillyMac? ;)

No, YouTube video is missing.

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

Holy strawman.

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...

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.

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....

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.

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. :rolleyes: :D )

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? :eek:)

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

Shut up.

Shut up.

(Better?...)

:p

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.

Thank you for saving me the time. :D

I thought I heard a buzzing sound in my ears.

Hopefully it's a wasp?

I think it may just be a fanboy whispering in my ear.

Ahh...sweet nothings.

It's called a slow whistle.

So if you were making $2500+ to do a game, you would never make a mistake? :rolleyes:

You could say that again.

That seems to be the prevailing theory among fans.

And The Fashion Police Badge ...
 

Someday I will, hopefully, become an esteemed Forum member and get the secret decoder ring. Do we get leather "Esteemed Forum Member" jackets like motorcycle club members wear? Now that would be really cool.

It was, IMO, more than a slow whistle on at least one occasion. The shooter was fouled on a 5 foot shot from the endline. The ball went up, bounced around a few times, finally fell off the rim and only then did V call the foul. It certainly looked like result-oriented refereeing than a slow whistle. It was the right call, I think, but I'd like to see it made as soon as it's obvious that it's a shot rather than when it's obvious the shot was not good.

I don't think Kitts had his best game ever, but I'm sure he did far better than I would have.

Assignment envy..... (see -- "who get to work ALL the games")

Keep dreaming, because your lack of rules knowledge exhibited here and your fan-boy attitude will keep you right where you are.

3-4 Seconds is not a slow whistle
 

3-4 seconds is too long in my opinion. I agree with having a patient whistle and seeing if the contact affected the shot. If it was an easily made basket then I might view it as incidental. I'd have to see the play. However, if it rolled around on the rim, then I'm calling it as soon as I see that. Again, assuming that I deemed that the contact rose to the level of a foul.

I watched the game. It was not a patient whistle -- it was "see if the shot goes in, if it doesn't then call the foul." I sure hope this isn't the direction advantage/disadvantage is going.

Of course, I had a similar situation on Saturday night where I gave my partner (the L) a chance to get the foul, waited a bit, then came in and got it from the C position. The coach actually asked me if I waited to see if the shot went in before calling the foul -- I reassured him that I don't officiate that way and I was just giving my partner an extra second or so to get that before I did. He was satisfied with that and life went on.

You need to log into your regular account. :D

Looking under Mike Kitts on you tube......ouch. Big games equals big exposure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09kyAefXZhM

Turtle! Phil Bova always ran with a hunched back.

MTD, Sr.

I am joining the thread late as usual, LOL.

Matt S.: "Extremely poor awareness...not to mention he simply can't keep up with the speed of the game anymore--frankly, I'm surprised he earned today's assignment."

Really! Then you haven't seen a few Big East officials who shall remain nameless or me officiate.


BillyMac: "I haven't seen the video, but around these parts, this can be, in a few circumstances, acceptable. Remember we're 99% two person here in Connecticut. Breakaway, transition situation, one official, lead, and a few players in the new frontcourt, new trail is deep in the backcourt, lead hasn't reached the endline yet, and is 100% sure. Blow the whistle, look to make sure your partner, the new trail, is still way back in the play, he doesn't have a whistle, and then count the basket. Usually pregamed."

I agree and it can happen in a 3-man game too.


Snaqs and M&M: Your last post in color. Well said.


MTD, Sr.

That Guy is posting again?:eek:

I have no idea what you're talking about. Or the other guy. I assume it's some kind of code. I'll figure it out as I go along.

my response to each of your comments are included above (if I was a real fanboy, I would know how to format this differently....)

Positively dripping with irony...

tried posting youtube vid

[img] youtube [/img] with no luck, what am I doing wrong?

To embed, use this code:

Substitute for values inside curly braces for your own video. Change { to < and ) to >

I guess you should have been on the game instead.

Oh, that's right. The supervisor put TV on the game, not you. :rolleyes:

Nah, fanboys and regular posters both have issues with formatting. :)

Maybe the issue is a combination of things, including perhaps your communication skills. Remember, what makes a great official over a good one is not just calling plays; most officials can do that. It's also being able to handle proper communication - both during a game and outside the game.

First, your description of the continuation play still does not determine Mike was wrong. It could be how you're describing the play. Or it could be your lack of rule knowledge. But, as you describe it, if the IL player had one foot on the floor at the time of the gather, the player traveled after the foul which would wipe of the shot attempt. So, it's either a communication issue or lack of rules knowledge on your part, whether or not we actually see the play.

On the Sullinger play, all you said was this was a play that was Mike obviously missed. But you didn't say where the play originated; you didn't mention whether Mike was the L, T or C; you didn't mention why the other officials definitely wouldn't have put a whistle on it if it was sooooo obvious and why it was Mike's fault alone. Communicating the specific play better might make it easier for us to discuss as officials, rather than simply crapping on him.

Your mention of your schedule, rather than adressing this comment, seems to almost prove my point. Again, is it how you're communicating?

Finally,
Doesn't your own comment speak for itself, especially regarding Mike?

Just making an observation. Not ripping TV -- he's one of my favorites to watch.

Kitts STILL didn't make it to the baseline as the new lead - remember he was trail from calling the previous foul


Wouldn't that make him the C? Don't they call and go opposite the table in NCAA-M? Or was it the previous foul not a shooting foul but a sideline throw-in opposite the table?

I hear you're one of his favs to watch too. ;)

It would wipe out a made basket, but if they didn't award the shooter two free throws, then the official didn't think he was even in the act of shooting (which was twocentsworth's point). I can't comment on the play as I haven't seen it, and I can't find any replay of the game.

oh look, it's Mike Kitts working in Dayton tonight.

Yep, Iona v BYU. Going to be high-scoring and fast-paced.

He just called a clear charge a block

No shock there. Wonder where he'll be Thursday.

He just badly missed one on a sideline, though -- that player wasn't close to being OOB.

Not to pile on but he just called an OOB on the sideline from at least 20 feet away where the players foot was very clearly in bounds.

He must think he's still working the Big 10 tourney...:)

Another missed call by Kitts? I'm not saying'...I'm just sayin.

You are correct, they report & go opposite. He was lead opposite table; called foul & became me trail. On turnover, he went from old trail to new lead....

when does the act of shooting begin?

Didnt watch entire game but Kitts looked fine to me other than the miss on the oob call.

Unbelievable comeback by BYU.

Same thing I thought.

It was very amusing watching the contrast in styles of Mike Kitts and Sean Corbin. Corbin has to be the most unaffected, coolest official in the NCAA. :cool:

I agree. He was that way in the NBA, too. Does anyone here know why Sean left the NBA?

NCAA 4-73-3.

But that's not the question. You said in your initial post that he wiped off a good layup. Upon further questioning, your backing is that the player took 2 steps between the foul and the layup. As you described, that's neither a good or bad call, without additional information. Someone who understands the rules would know to supply that information so that it's easier for the rest us to follow your reasoning.

The same with the Sullinger play - you have yet to respond to the specifics as to why it was only Mike's bad no-call, and why the rest of the crew was not responsible.

If you notice, I haven't given my opinion as to whether Mike had a bad night. But your descriptions of the plays tend to make me believe the opinions come from a less than knowledgeable source. Maybe it's just how you communicate?

Heard from a pretty reliable source that he got a very nice early retirement package (as did Joe Derosa) and that he preferred the control he has over his own schedule at the NCAA level. Also that all he has to do now is work a game then move onto the next game instead of dealing with all the red tape and postgame accountability involved with being an NBA official.

All of the mistakes mentioned in this thread can happen to all of us...in a gym with 10 people watching. As was mentioned previously, to say that someone making more money should get plays right is absurd.

I would like to see some of these critics work.

BNR - I like respect many of your opinions and I was wondering if you viewed Corbin's style as cool or apathetic as compared to Scott Foster (#48) in the NBA who looks like he OD on 5 hr energy drinks.....

Somtimes Corbin looks as though he is freakin bored and doesn't want to be there.....

BTW - also heard that Corbin wasn't happy with his post season assignments as he felt he wasn't moving up the ladder fast enough

I'm sure he is not apathetic but I could see how it might be interpreted as such. I don't think I could get away with it, at least not on plays in which I'm involved. But I do like it when he is the off-official and he is just observing the court while his partners tend to business.

This provokes a question. (maybe a poll) How desirable is it to try to maintain a certain demeanor on the court? How much, if any, emotion is too much to show?

Early in the season, I was discussing this with a new official. I told him no matter what you do, somebody isn't going to like it. I gave 3 examples.

_________ smiles all the time. "He's laughing at us!"


__________ frowns all the time. "He's mad at us!"


I, personally, make it a point to try and remain expressionless. (this is not always possible) "He doesn't even care!"

Thoughts?

Expressionless, but focused. Its hard for someone to say you don't care if you are watching intently and doing things to keep in the game. If your hands are on your hips and staring, that's a different story

I have one supervisor who likes for his officials to smile every once in a while and will comment if he thinks we look too serious all the time on the court.

I have another supervisor who doesn't like robots and wants us all to develop and show our own personalities on the court.

Both of these guys are very big on positive and effective communication with HCs.

If you think Foster is on energy drinks, then I want to know what you think Hightower is on! :eek: ;)

Rocket fuel, of course.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images...op_340x234.jpg