Announcer Idiocy
 

Just thought I'd start a thread for this, because it's so amusing.

CSU/Murray State, early in the 2nd half.

TC foul, replay shows screener sticking his leg out and tripping the defender. Foul called. Announcer, watching the replay, says "I think that's no harm no foul."

Shortly after, on a shooting foul where the defender clips the shooter's elbow, he calls it a "nickle and dime" foul.

Bill Rafferty is the "nickle and dimer"

Next one will be a slap and tickle :D

+1

I think the announcers should say who they bet on prior to Vegas closing the window. THAT would clear up a lot.

Send them the new squirrel pic

Saw that. Saving it for some particular forum members. :D

He was also the "no harm" guy, and I knew it was him. Wait for "the kiss" in this one, too.

Funny side note: first commercial I just saw, Etrade, "don't get nickle and dimed...."

Hehe that'd make for some interesting reading, wouldn't it?

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

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.

http://therubberchickens.files.wordp...minembrent.jpg

In the Indiana - NM St game a NM St player drives and does a 'funny looking' move per the announcer and is fouled. 8 min or so left in the 1H

No travel was the correct call...what was even more shocking was this explanation by the announcer and I paraphrase "Now lets see here...well he does a jump stop and lands with one foot. Now that foot is the pivot foot and you can move the pivot foot provided you are passing or shooting."

For an announcer I gotta give him some credit for knowing the rule even if the explanation is a bit clumsy (didn't care for the whole 'move pivot foot' phrase), but gotta give them credit when they get something more right than wrong....

I heard that too, knew it would get posted here.

He said "I think that's no harm no foul" as the slow-mo showed Canaan falling to the ground, unable to defend his guy. LOL

Or the no-calls after review.

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."

Credit where credit is due...
 

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?

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.

As they say "tape don't lie." I thought he had another dribble as he crossed the division line. Turns out he was ending his dribble.

I was also planning the mention the travel by the Alabama post player but that's another rant for another time.

<embed width="440" height="420" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://v5.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=2q2popx&s=5"><br><font size="1"><a href="http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2q2popx&s=5">Original Video</a> - More videos at <a href="http://tinypic.com">TinyPic</a></font>

It's was close enough for this situation.

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

Game Over
 

Charles Barkley's rant on Friday night takes the cake. I can't imagine any other talking head coming close to his idiotic comments.

just from a fans standpoint. I constantly see on here how coach's, players, analysts are always wrong about rules...of course, thats why your getting PAID to be there. Start telling people the rules then they will know.

Like the free throw violation. I havent seen it called all year long, even though its the correct call. So naturally after it happens, i assume there was some meeting to focus on it, and its called again today. When generally I would think watching travels, holds, etc would be more of a focus. But the point is, dont you generally step when games are physical and say something like "watch the hands"....why not do it on the free throw, you should explain to them, because you shouldnt want them to committ the violation...afterall they are all so uneducated about it. If you dont like people infering differently TELL THEM

Oh boy...first fanboy of the Tournament.

Coaches are paid to coach. Part of that is knowing the rules and coaching your kids.

TV talking heads are paid to announce the game. They includes understanding the game, therefore, the rules.

Officials do practice preventive officiating. Every time I step into the lane, I say, "Wait 'til it hits." Guess what? Basketball players are rocket scientists. They still violate.

You're kidding? Right?

If a D-I college player doesn't know that rule, he has no-one to blame but himself. High school players know that rule!


Regarding Kellogg, he debunks the myths that others perpetuate.

Coaches and analysts get paid to be there as well. You would think that a coach would want to know the rules of the game to the benefit of himself and his team. You'd also think that an analyst would want to know the rules so that he could speak intelligently about the game being broadcast. Players aren't paid (:D), but it would behoove them to know the rules as well — of course, most of them (like coaches and analysts) think they know all of the rules just because they have been around the game for a long time.

We should tell these people the rules and they'll just listen, right? You've obviously never had one of these conversations. I've had plenty of instances where a coach was just adamant about his knowledge of a rule, but was dead wrong.

Bottom line: It's their responsibility to educate themselves, not mine.

I think the referee did say something afterwards and players and coaches are always allowed to ask reasonable, respectful questions about a ruling. It's not our job to warn players about every potential infraction they might incur —*it's their job to know the rules of the game and play accordingly.

The free throw violations were clear and obvious — it doesn't take any focus to call those really. They just don't happen that often, so automatically fans/coaches/analysts/Charles Barkley think that we are wrong on the rule, wrong to call it, etc, etc. One headline over the weekend deemed the lane violation an "unusual call" ... it's not an unusual call — it's an unusual PLAY. Don't blame the ref for making the call —*blame the player for making a boneheaded play. (BTW —*the rule is the same in high school and junior high, so these players should have known about this for many, many years)

As far as the analysts/broadcasters are concerned, they are briefed on rules and rule changes at the start of every season. You know how they handle that briefing? They don't pay attention, at least that's what I've been told by coordinators on both the men's and women's side. I work in TV and I've worked with some of these folks. They'd rather shoot from the hip than be correct.

I have a friend I went to grad school with who has always been grateful when I helped her with a rule situation via e-mail because she wants to be entertaining and intelligent but her ethic is the exception rather than the rule.

Regarding the FT violation, you haven't seen it because most of the kids have sense enough not to do it. Remember, these are college basketball players. It's not as though they just started playing the game last month. I won't say all of the kids know the rule because they don't. I will say, though, that many of the kids are aware of it...especially the guards because they don't always line up on the lane for a FT.

Also, there wouldn't be any need to have "some meeting" to focus on it. In that situation, where a team really needs a rebound, we're going to be that much more alert to players trying to gain an advantage. Of course, given how obvious the violations were it didn't take a whole lot to see them.

Shoot, I've had conversations with fans and coaches about rules and when they realize they are wrong their response is "well I don't like that rule" or "that shouldn't be the rule" and therefore the official is still wrong.

Plus, they already think they know it all!!

That's when you tell them the coaches (on the rules committee) make the rules.

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. :D

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.