WNBA: Jacket Removal and Toss
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5JkJXSP3AA8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Does that jacket removal and toss earn her a second T in your game?

WNBA Finals -- Lin Dunn, Indiana Fever coach, criticizes Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve for actions in Game 2 - ESPN

No doubt where I work a 2nd T would be expected.

Very likely.

Heck yes. This was an embarrassment to her self, her team, and her sport.

Especially since, now that I watched the entire video, that was a great no-call by the official :D

Nope. That is not egregious enough for me at the college level. It was not directed at the official, was not a prolonged action, and her staff got her under control pretty quickly.

If this is a HS game, then yes....

(Let the criticism begin).....

Absolutely...and I would have no problem giving her the 2nd one myself had I called the first one.

Yes. And I think a coach would've gotten the gate in the NBA, too.

Ijs
 

http://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/Gro...sert_FINAL.pdf

Appendix III

4. emphatically
removing one’s coat in response to a call/no-call or throwing
equipment or clothing on to the floor

This year the emphasis is apparently on:
1. Simply removing the coat emphatically.
2. Throwing equipment.
3. If the coat is already off, throwing it.

I don't think so...toss the jacket onto the court or in the stands sure. Toss is at your assistant coach? That's nothing.

Come on, all she did was vigorously hand her jacket to an assistant. :)

Seriously though, I wouldn't have categorized that as tossing or throwing the jacket. It simply didn't go far enough and it went straight to an assistant coach who caught it without so much as a second thought.

For the high school level, I think the fit probably lasted long enough for a second T. For professional ball, I wouldn't expect a second T here.

I expect emotional responses to Ts and I don't want to pile on. If the jacket was slammed to the floor or launched across the floor, I'd think differently.

Do you really think she "aimed" it at her assistant?

Yes, I think she does. Watch it again. She takes it off. Starts to throw it at the end line, thinks better of it, stops, turns, and throws it to the assistant.

HS / NCAA - yes

WNBA - no (especially if it is female )....now you think I'm kidding listen to this.

In the NCAA - W handouts ( I work men's but saw this at a small college clinic), I guess bench decorum is a POE. Well the picture of a coach coaching on the court is a WOMAN ( no technical), but the picturre of a coach
screaming/ being demonstrative ont he court is a MAN.....you don't think the rules committee did that on purpose ?????


Makes you wanna go hmmmmmmmmm !!!!!!!

At the Women's College level the tossing of the jacket is a separate act from the initial whack for arguing...two whacks.

How egregious do you want it to be? The NCAA said it really wants to clean up coaches’ behavior...you better whack that this year or nothing will change.

I don't think that it earns a T at the NBA level either

No

Don't be so nieve my friend.......if the Women's Committe could come up with 96 women officials they would do it in a heartbeat......

I have seen letters from more than one state asking assigners for minorities and women to work state tournaments, you really don't think the NCAA -W Committee feels the same way ??????

I'm only addressing your point that there's some nefarious reason behind the gender of a faceless picture addressing bench decorum.

Fair enough my friend.......

Why do expect emotional responses to a 'T'? Both the player and the coach got T'd on a play that the official absolutely got right. So after being T'd for inappropriate behavior they should be allotted more inappropriate behavior?

They are already acting irrationally. Irrational people confronted with that irrationality are going to react with more irrationality.

Do you really expect them to suddenly become calm?

If they know the 2nd T is coming (maybe not calm but more self control) Id say yes.
If they know they can get away with it, obviously not.

Yes, yes I do.

Remarkably, they usually do.

I've only ever had 1 coach who didn't immediately turn it down after getting hit with a Tech, so the norm for me is that they are more than capable of suddenly becoming calm.

That 1 coach I speak of received a 2nd T for his actions.

For the Jacket, no. For other stuff (yelling along with it), perhaps. Just not for removing the jacket and throwing it to her bench/seat.

Sounds like it's one of those things that vary with locations then.

In high school, this would earn a second technical from me.

I don't know about the college level or professional basketball. Just from watching D1 basketball, coaches often get away with murder and officials don't penalize them, so I have my doubts that a lot of D1 men's officials would penalize the jacket toss. Now if it were accompanied by yelling and other demonstrative behavior, then I could see another technical.

It probably varies with enforcement. I've only had to issue a second T one time, in a summer travel game to an assistant coach.

Even this week I had a pretty emotional coach get a T, but he sat right down. If amateur coaches are capable of controling their emotions, the professionals can do it, too.

I don't think that warrants a second technical. Official absolutely blew the call in my opinion.

Blew what call? The one where the defender put her hand on top of the ball and caused a turnover?

I have no problem giving a second T on this at any level that I work. I guess I would have to hear what she said or how she said things after getting the first T. I would want my partner to give the second one, but hey act better if you do not want anyone to think of calling this. ;)

Peace

First, I completely disagree with you about the call being missed.

Second, and most important (for me anyway)...are you saying that you would ignore unsporting behavior from a coach simply because you think your partner blew a call???

Does the "hand is part of the ball" apply when defender is reaching across, and susequently makes contact with (39 sec frame), the offensive player's arm? I have to question that she was unable to get her shot off, as much due to the contact on her arm as the hand on the ball. Small chance for held ball call here after seeing it a few times. As for the 2nd T, I'll weigh in with yes for HS, but prob no for pros.

I went back and looked at the play in stopped frames, and I'll have to agree with you. Contact was with the ball before any contact on the arm. Looked like a foul in full speed, and a whistle would have been incorrect.

Secondly, If I blow a call, I'll be patient before issuing a "T". I'll give the coach extra leeway in this situation. I've got my partners back if a "T" is warranted and my partner doesn't see the action that warrants the "T".

It is not a foul because the player contacted the ball first and anything else would be incidental. It is that simple. No one is going to play defense on you and be expected to never contact you, ever.

Peace

Whew!

I was hoping that was what you meant...And I agree. If I think I "missed" a call, I will let a little more venting than usual take place - but nothing approaching the level of this lady!

I stand correct...NBA: Whack, get out

Thanks. Any chance for a held ball call here?

If you determined the player came back down with the ball, then a jump ball would be a proper call.

I would not even call that in high school where the rule is a little different. I think in real time this was just a good block.

Peace

I agree, I have a play on

I'm looking at it full screen, frozen at about :40. The defender has a hand full of wrist and clearly restricts the arm. Absolutely a whistle is correct here. No justification for coach COMING ON THE COURT and protesting, but I think she deserves a little leeway on her response.

:confused: You're calling a foul based on a frozen moment? Before the contact B1 capped the ball. As A1 tried to continue her shot her left hand started coming off the ball and that's when contact you are referring to occurred.

Nope. Im saying that a whistle looks justified with the benefit of slow mo and replay. Camera had a beautiful angle. The coach certainly had a case against the no-call so I'd cut her some slack on the response.

It's not justified. The post above explains why it wasn't a foul.

On another note, I've cleaned up the thread. Before anyone calls anyone an idiot again, please note that we'll delete those types of posts. They don't do anything for this board.

The call was missed. This isn't even close.

The defender may have touched the ball at the beginning but when the shooter tried to take the ball up, the only contact from the defender was across the shooter's forearm and not on the ball at all any more. The defender didn't stop the movement of the ball, they stopped the movement of the arm.

If the hand had also remained on the ball AND the arm while the shooter was going up, I could agree with no foul, but the defender was only holding down the arm.

Quote:

Dunn said she thought Reeve should have been ejected because the wildest part of the tantrum came after the technical. "I guess the thing that concerns me is that after she got her first technical, then she proceeded to take her jacket off, throw her jacket," Dunn said. "In my opinion, that should have been reason for a second technical and removal, and they (the officials) did not do that, and of course, she was able to incite the crowd. "There's no doubt in my mind that her behavior after the first technical warranted ejection, and I was very disappointed that the officials allowed her to in some ways, you know, just kind of a lack of respect for the game and lack of respect for them. I was disappointed in the whole affair."

"Unless, of course, it was I who did this. In that case this wouldn't have been a problem and I would see this as just getting a "T" to fire up my team," said the other coach....

:confused:

This is exactly how I view it and based on that, I'm giving the coach a little leeway. She absolutely should be rung up based on her initial response, but I'd be hesitant to ring up a second T and toss her. IMHO, she had a valid gripe initially.

The Wrist Is Part Of The Ball ??? In Who's World ???
 

I am also charging a foul on this play.

How much would you charge for this foul?

Lets' Bring Two Threads Together ...
 

Not sure, haven't checked the 2012-13 price list. But I do know that there would be a 7% assignment fee.

So let me get this straight. You are going to call a foul on a defender that clearly contacted the ball first or mostly the ball, but had some contact with an arm at some point in the process of the play?

Peace

Hyperbole Is The Word Of The Day On My Word Of The Day Calendar ...
 

Some? She almost tore her arm out of it's socket. Wait? Almost? No. She actually did tear her arm out of it's socket, and then waved the detatched arm around to show the crowd. Yeah. That's better.

Yes. Contacting the ball first doesn't grant the right to the defender to hold down the arm of the shooter (actually pull the shooters arm off the ball) after contacting the ball. She didn't just have "some contact" on the arm. That is the primary contact, not the earlier ball contact.

If the initial ball contact had knocked the ball free, then the arm contact would be incidental, but it didn't. Since the shooter maintained control of the ball after the ball contact and was able to start a shot that was only stopped due to the arm contact, it can't be anything but a foul.

The No-call was absolutely correct. I wouldn't even think twice about it, neither would any of the supervisors I work for.

So, your supervisors like to allow the defender to pull the shooter's hand off the ball by hold onto their arm? Really?

If that is the case, why did the player not fall? That is some kind of contact to stay on your feet. Again the rules give the defender the same right to the ball. I see more contact on held ball situations than that play.

Peace

Not only that, as a state clinician I would love to praise an official that did not call that a foul.

To call that is at best a high school call. Any contact, call the foul no matter how the contact took place. ;)

Peace

Saturday, October 20, 2012: Hyperbole ...
 

Why did the player not bleed to death?

If that was what happened, then a foul should be called. But the defender clearly has her hand on the ball and the shooter tries to muscle the ball up through the defenders hand/arm. I'm not punishing the defender for that. If you want to, go ahead. That's A great no-call in my book.

What does that have to do with this play? I'm not calling a foul on a defender just b/c the offensive player can't rip through the defender's capping of the ball.

I despise the phrase "high school call". It reeks of big-timing.

OK, it is a JV call.

Either way, this is about the only place that call would be acceptable (and not acceptable where I live).

Peace

Because the ball does not bleed. ;)

Peace

So by that logic if she turned, picked up a chair and launched it behind the bench you wouldn't have tossed her, either? I mean, it wouldn't have been directed at an official, wouldn't have been prolonged and we can assume her staff would've gotten her to calm down pretty quickly.

As BigBald said, how egregious do you want it to be?

The defender didn't cap the ball, they touched it and capped the arm.

I would suggest either better video quality or a new prescription.

In fact the defender's hand made no downward motion until the ball came loose. Her hand initially moved up with the ball and then when the ball came loose is the first time her hand moved downward. I honestly have no idea what the heck you are looking at.

The direction the defender's hand moves is not relevant. The ball continued UP afterwards...not much, but UP while the shooters arm stayed down as a result of behind held down. That is a very reliable symptom of the contact being on the arm instead of the ball. Plus, the defender isn't permitted to contact the arm to get to the ball....that point is indisputable unless you close your eyes when watching the video. They can make contact with a hand that is one the ball, but not the arm.

One Video, Thousand Words ...
 

With such a difference of opinion, it's too bad that we don't have video to watch to see who is correct.

The defender didn't contact the arm to get to the ball...the defender got her hand on the ball and then the shooter tried to muscle her way through the defender, undoubtedly hoping she had an official there who would make such a call. Good thing for the game that those officials knew better.

Unfortunate for the game that the officials don't call the obvious foul and that there are others that back them up.

Well if it was obvious, why are there many officials saying this should not be called? Why are you correct on this situation and everyone else is wrong? It really should not be a matter how many feel one way or the other, but it is telling when not everyone even can agree on this contact. This is why it is called, "judgment" I guess.

Peace

I'm with you from your earlier posts. H.S. I can see calling a foul but even then I'm iffy. College and Pro? Play on. Defender got the ball first and then it's a case of one strong person trying to hold the ball down (defense) while another tries to raise it towards the goal (offense). At any rate I'm not going to use "obvious" on this situation. If we're all debating it my guess is it really isn't obvious.

I can see the coach being upset because of whatever angle she has and the fact she's a coach but she doesn't get to go berserk, even if I think my partners or I may have missed the call.

Let's keep the personal stuff out of it and focus on discussing the play.

Just Kidding ...
 

Better yet. Let's have a poll.

Again, you need to make up your mind. I'm still trying figure out how the defender ripped A1's hand off the ball while at the same time maintaining contact with the ball.

Dirk Nowitzki said it best:

Shut it down, let's go home.