2013 IHSA 2A Boys' Final...Ballgame99's Plays to Consider

[deecee]

Irrespective of what the calls were or should have been, and this being only the first quarter, this game looks like it is a steaming locomotive that is heading about to turn into a runaway from the crew.

[Rich]

When I see both players go down after multiple crashes and no whistles being put on the play, my first thought is that the crew just wasn't mentally prepared to work the game -- or that they were a bit overwhelmed with the assignment.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my first reaction.

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by Rich

When I see both players go down after multiple crashes and no whistles being put on the play, my first thought is that the crew just wasn't mentally prepared to work the game -- or that they were a bit overwhelmed with the assignment.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my first reaction.

My first reaction is something that has happened to me. You let the first B/C go as a NC. Then next one is at other end and if you call it you will have one of coaches (regardless of call) complain that you did not call it at other end, so you make another NC for "consistency" rather than admitting that a mistake was made first time. In this game it looked like they were "consistent" about 8 times, which makes them "consistenly wrong" 8 times.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

My first reaction is something that has happened to me. You let the first B/C go as a NC. Then next one is at other end and if you call it you will have one of coaches (regardless of call) complain that you did not call it at other end, so you make another NC for "consistency" rather than admitting that a mistake was made first time. In this game it looked like they were "consistent" about 8 times, which makes them "consistenly wrong" 8 times.

To be consistently wrong on your judgement does not make for good "consistency". It makes for a train wreck of a game. I'd rather be NOT consistent and wrong that one time than allow things to get out of hand.

Either way, most times, and irrespective of the situation one coach won't be happy.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

My first reaction is something that has happened to me. You let the first B/C go as a NC. Then next one is at other end and if you call it you will have one of coaches (regardless of call) complain that you did not call it at other end, so you make another NC for "consistency" rather than admitting that a mistake was made first time. In this game it looked like they were "consistent" about 8 times, which makes them "consistenly wrong" 8 times.

I understand deecee's response but I think you're right, LeeBall. It really appears as though they whiffed on the first block-charge (in the other thread) and that started the ball rolling down hill. Once it started it was tough to stop. If they get the second one, right or wrong but hopefully right, at least it puts everyone back into the mindset of "okay, let's call these."

[just another ref]

Reflecting on the last call to make the call at hand is at best, unnecessary. See the play. Make the call. Consistency should take care of itself.

[KMBReferee]

Play #1: PC. Clear displacement. That wasn't a flop.
Play #2: Block. Regardless, you gotta have a call there when the shooter is wiped out.
Play #3: No call, but I see why he did it. If the lead stepped in, I think he would have seen it differently.
Play #4: Travel all day long. A couple of years ago our State Sup of Officials - who was also a long-time college official - went over spins and says in the HS game if the dribbler tries to spin that 9 times out of 10 it's going to be a travel. He's probably right.
Play #5: PC. Does the shooter have to sit on the guy's face before a whistle's blown?
Play #6: PC, good call. Enough contact was inside the torso in order to justify it, unlike play #3

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Play #1: PC. Clear displacement. That wasn't a flop.
Play #2: Block. Regardless, you gotta have a call there when the shooter is wiped out.
Play #3: No call, but I see why he did it. If the lead stepped in, I think he would have seen it differently.
Play #4: Travel all day long. A couple of years ago our State Sup of Officials - who was also a long-time college official - went over spins and says in the HS game if the dribbler tries to spin that 9 times out of 10 it's going to be a travel. He's probably right.
Play #5: PC. Does the shooter have to sit on the guy's face before a whistle's blown?
Play #6: PC, good call. Enough contact was inside the torso in order to justify it, unlike play #3

Play #2 - combined with a similar play in the previous video post on this game - may be the most baffling. Two airborne shooters get wiped out by kids under the hoop who don't have LGP and there's not even a thought of a whistle? Some of the others you can see where they might have been missed but those two plays were train wrecks that any one of them could've called and nobody would've complained. That's what makes you wonder whether everyone's head was in it from the start.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

To be consistently wrong on your judgement does not make for good "consistency". It makes for a train wreck of a game. I'd rather be NOT consistent and wrong that one time than allow things to get out of hand.

Either way, most times, and irrespective of the situation one coach won't be happy.

I think the two of you are in agreement.