Announcer Idiocy

[Mark Dexter]

I'm still a fan of the Flagrant 1 vs. Flagrant 2 debates that have been occurring all afternoon.

[Mark Padgett]

Believe it or not, many years ago (actually, there should be about 100 "manys") I broadcast HS basketball (and even a few small college games) on a local radio station back in Illinois (Aurora). Although I don't remember too much about it, (at my age, I have trouble remembering what happened before lunch) I know I got some very nice comments from listeners and especially from a guy who identified himself as an official. He said I actually gave the proper names to the fouls I described and that was rare in those days. I think most of my "accuracy" was because the guy I worked with on the air was a former official who had retired. I wish I would have stuck with it. Maybe if I had, I'd be as famous as Bent Hamburger.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I'm still a fan of the Flagrant 1 vs. Flagrant 2 debates that have been occurring all afternoon.

Or the no-calls after review.

[bainsey]

Radio call of today's Bama/Creighton game, end of the game...

"They called a foul, and the official ran off the court! The official had his hand up, and then ran off the court! He had his hand up!"

After 10-20 seconds...

"Oh, he was signaling a three-point attempt."

[JetMetFan]

Clark Kellogg for knowing the rule regarding what constitutes a backcourt violation for a dribbler near the end of the Creighton/Alabama game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Clark Kellogg for knowing the rule regarding what constitutes a backcourt violation for a dribbler near the end of the Creighton/Alabama game.

Are you talking about the no-call where the announcer proceeded to explain the irrelevant 3 points rule?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Are you talking about the no-call where the announcer proceeded to explain the irrelevant 3 points rule?

It wasn't irrelevant. He was reacting to the noise the crowd was making in the arena. For us it was irrelevant because we know the rule. For most people watching the game it was relevant because they were probably thinking "hey, that was a backcourt violation."

[APG]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It wasn't irrelevant. He was reacting to the noise the crowd was making in the arena. For us it was irrelevant because we know the rule. For most people watching the game it was relevant because they were probably thinking "hey, that was a backcourt violation."

I believe Snaq means that since the player wasn't dribbling (if I remember correctly), then the 3 points rule doesn't apply.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Are you talking about the no-call where the announcer proceeded to explain the irrelevant 3 points rule?

It's was close enough for this situation.

[bainsey]

Clark Kellogg has become my favorite analyst, period. While most are sloppy with rules knowledge, he is always sharp.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's was close enough for this situation.

You're right. It was briefly relevant, then it wasn't.

Dribbler approaching the division line. The dribble turned into an interrupted dribble as he crossed the line while the ball remained in the BC. He then turns around, with one foot in the FC and the other in the air, and reaches for the ball. Half a second before he catches the ball, his other foot sets down in the BC, giving him BC status. Had he caught the ball before that foot touched down in the BC, it would have been a violation as soon as it touched.

Even if the dribble wasn't interrupted, the ruling would have been the same.

So yeah, it was close to being relevant.

My only issue was he went on and on about the three points rule, but this could have easily been a violation even though the ball never touched down in the FC.

My experience is about half the fans know about 3 points, and most of the coaches. The problem is the ones that know about it don't understand when it applies and when it doesn't.