Ohio team loses H.S. state title after late hanging-on-the-rim technical foul
 

Original ESPN article: Ohio team loses H.S. state title after late hanging-on-the-rim technical foul - SportsNation - ESPN

(Trying to embed ESPN video...)

I don't see anything there that would justify a technical for me as a non-official. He may have pulled down on the rim a little after the ball went through, but other than that there's nothing here. I feel like his actions after he hit the ground had to have played into the T.

Absolutely a T. Good for the official and good for the director backing him up.

Fan comments are comical.

correct call...I can see why the fans are upset because no one is used to that call, but I think it's clear he added a bit after the dunk and the T could have been called. Sure some refs would have passed on it but I don't fault the ref here at all.

btw, speaking of a pass. In the Open Championship for California, at the end of regulation one team got the rebound with the game tied with about two seconds to go. A player was calling a TO but his team didn't have any. The refs let it go and the game went into OT. That was a great move by the refs(assuming they did it on purpose because it was fairly quick). It would have been a horrible way to end the game so pass on that T if the situation calls for it.

Just so I'm clear, what part of it is the part where he "added a bit after"?

Just Who's Coaching This Team ???
 

Totally disagree.

It's the officials' responsibility (NFHS) to tell a head coach that he has no timeouts left. It's the coach's responsibility to inform his players of such. It's the players' responsibility to listen to the coach's instructions.

It is not an official's responsibility to "let it go" to help either team.

Fire up the flux capacitor to go back to 1993. Every official, coach, and player, should watch, and learn from, this video The player, and/or, the coach, were wrong. But the official was 100% correct:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-QPB9NBUG2g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jesus Christ mutant

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/wptes...2/facepalm.gif

Players may hang on to the rim when there is a possibility of it being a safety issue...but they only get to hang on, not put on a show. Pulling his legs to a point nearly at the level of the rim is not just hanging on the rim for safety. It is way beyond that.

Cam is 100% correct...

I must say I got a good laugh out of the ESPN board comments on this play.Official made the correct call which is what I would expect a state finals level official to do here or on December 20th.I said on the ESPN board that if I were the official and passed on the T here I'd expect to hear it from the supervisor of officials for the OHSAA.

Got it. I didn't initially realize that his legs got that high. I'd agree with the call.

sorry off-topic but here is a link to the California game. no mention of the lack of timeouts. The TV people talked about it, but it did not seem like the right way to end this game. In my opinion the refs 100% saw the TO request. Maybe it didn't register in their mind to grant it which I think can happen in that situation. Or maybe they knew a tech would be called. But either way I'm very glad it wasn't. I think the shot was missed by Mater Dei with 1.5 or two seconds left (TO request by one player without the ball) and then time runs out. OT. It wasn't controversial. It happened and play moved on. Well-officiated game. Sorry no video.


Eric Sondheimer: Mater Dei-Bishop O&apos;Dowd basketball title game fittingly caps weekend - LA Times


here is the mention of the timeout issue. On the TV, you could see it was 100% certain that the player was trying to call time-out. In part I think it was lucky for the player that there was so little time left that the timeout request could have been ignored or not seen. Had there been more time this may have been a different issue.

Streak ends | state, monarchs, scored - Sports - OC Varsity


this is the ending, not the play in question. On the TV video it appears there is a foul. you can't really see it. There then was a two minute delay or so to work things out with the time and Rabb was frozen at the line so the first ft was an airball.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JA0fkLnhhIM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I truly hope that mutantducky isn't a HS basketball official, but I fear that he may be somewhere in the Bay Area. His thoughts on shooting fouls and how officials should call a game are disgraceful.

If an official observed a player committing an infraction, yet purposely did not make the call and penalize it, then that official lacks integrity.

Btw the team which could have been penalized for the excessive TO request went on to win the game and the State Championship by making a FT with under a second to play in OT.

This is cutting edge stuff right here.

I just don't see this as anywhere near as clear cut as everyone else. His lower body seemed to have a bunch of momentum going forward, he didn't really swing or pull up much except to stop the momentum and *maybe* a little extra. This doesn't cross the threshold into excessive for me, but it's close. It's not the greatest angle - from behind it looks like the legs were swinging forward on the momentum of the shot. If he brought them up more to showboat, then sure, much more understandable call. Even his own coach didn't exactly give a rousing defense.

Of course, CC - feel free to score more next time to not put yourself in that position or stop the other team after the T shots.

Tough Call ...
 

scrounge: I agree with you. Knowing in advance about the technical foul situation pushed me toward a technical foul the first time I saw the video. On the second look I tried to have an open mind, as if I were the official in the game, and decided that I could live with the technical foul being called, or not.

Either way, I would have preferred to be the lead official in this situation, not looking up. That's why I don't do state finals.

http://youtu.be/JvNeRcFdS4Q


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can see this going either way. Personally, this is not a T. Did he emphasize his play? Sure, but he didn't over do it. Good for the OHSAA guy to back his official, but he's giving incorrect/misinformation rules info isn't he: "...not any players underneath him..." ???

Precisely
 

My thoughts exactly. All Rule 10-3-3 says is "except to prevent injury," which imo, he was doing.

He had created enough momentum trucking down the lane that had he let go of the rim any sooner, he might've landed on his back.

It was only a "great move" if you're a fan of the team that benefited.

If you're a fan of the other team, or a fan of basketball, or an official, or you have any sense of fair play, then it was NOT a "great move". Quite the opposite.

Was the dunk a T? In real time I wouldn't be so sure that his momentum caused his positioning and he held on so he didn't fall and land on his back.

With some replays it's still not very cut and dry. Either way a case can be made for both sides. I personally may not have made the call.

As for everything else the duck has said. Your sense of fair play is at the cost of the team that got screwed by any official that doesn't do the impartial thing. So in other words, it's not really fair play because one side gets screwed big time.

I don't see enough to warrant the T. His momentum carried him through to a point of it being necessary to hang on to the rim to prevent injury.

Not to get dragged down by the side conversation, but our job is not to make play fit within our definition of fairness. Our job is to enforce the rules as written to ensure fair play as defined by the rules of the game.

If he doesn't hang on the rim, his "momentum" doesn't carry his feet forward and upward like this. This is a great call.

I'm going to assume they didn't see it. Any official who is too scared to make this call shouldn't be working. The philosophy you allude to here does not belong on the court at any level beyond 6th grade YMCA.

You're either an expert troll or a horrible official.

Why not both?

Expert Horrible Official Troll or EHOT for short?

http://fronheiser.net/Internet-Troll.jpg

I'm seeing a lot of people on that ESPN board roasting this guy for making that call.Sometimes the correct call isn't always the popular call and we're not here to be popular.

Neither Junior nor I saw the game live because we were officiating in the Ohio Special Olympics State Finals in New Philadelphia, so I had to find the replay of the game on Sports Time Ohio.

The call was correct. Not to mention that everybody in the OhioHSAA office was in attendance not to mention the State Rules Interpreter and I can assure you that if the TF had not been called those officials would have heard about it in the locker room after the game from the State Rules Interpreter.

MTD, Sr.

Am I missing something here? Didn't this kid basically swing his legs high enough to kick the support? How is that "momentum"??

I totally agree. My first reaction the first time I watched it was "T". He also fist pounds his chest afterwards. He wasn't challenged on the rise to the rim and there is no one under him. To me this is an easy one. Even his coach didn't defend it.

This.
"Hey guys, did you see me on that dunk? I kicked the support arm! Wasn't that cool?"
"Uhh, no, it wasn't! Your showboating cost us the game!?!"

I've seen hanging for safety reasons. If you think he was hanging like that, with his feet way up and all, for safety then you're looking for it. I don't have to look for anything to see a showboat worthy of a tech.

Exactly. If this doesn't qualify, they may as well get rid of the rule or re-word it to require a chin up or a roar or something.

Did he swing them for no reason? Or was his forward momentum such that his legs kept going when he dunked and he couldn't let go lest he fall flat on his back? I think a reasonable case can be made it was that. In any case, I don't see it at all as a clear-cut no brainer.

Edited to add:

Here's a different view of the play, from the high center cam. The players has a considerable amount of forward momentum. If he let go, he's flat on the ground.

http://usatodayhss.com/2015/clevelan...oys-basketball

Unless he was running like a cheetah, he wouldn't have had enough momentum to cause his legs to go anywhere near that high. He deliberately pulled them up that high and deliberately put himself in that position and the only way he falls on his back is because he did so. He may have had some momentum and a right to hang on but he gave that right up by pulling his legs up to showboat.

You're just looking for a way to avoid blowing the whistle, probably saying you want the kids to decide the game. But, you know what, you just decided the game by not properly calling an obvious infraction. The player decided the game for you and you reversed it by not calling the earned T.

If he never hangs on, he doesn't have to worry about it.

Here's an idea...don't grab the rim and momentum isn't an issue!

There's certainly an element of momentum here, but I think the player gives an extra something in addition to momentum...watch the left leg lag behind then kick up higher than the right.

I'm not saying I would have had the stones to call it given the situation, but I think the official nailed it.

I think if anything this is the closest to the heart of the issues here:

1) Their seems to be a camp of people (not a lot here though) that seem to think dunking in unnecessary and inherently showy so they are already sensitive to the issue. They may not be looking for a T but anything beyond dropping the ball through the hoop irks them some how.

2a) Because of lack of clarity or lack of enforcement in regards to the rule players who dunk often do not go up with thought/regard for the landing. THey habitually dunk and grab the rim to use it gather and reposition themselves before the landing and feel like its part of the prcoess. Now when a kid really hammers one down in a game the extra umph without any regards for jumping/landing technique he needs to "hang" or "swing" to land safely.

2b) Chicken/egg? Now you've got players who are legally allowed to do something but don't do it in a way that allows them to finish the play within the confines of the rules expectations. Did this start happening because it wasn't being called at T in the past or did we stop calling it a T because it happened so frequently.

3) This can be an issue of clients. If you work in a rural public school area you might see a few dunks a year in games if you are lucky. If you work in inner city public or even private schools you might have to work games routinely where 10% of the rim finishes in a game are dunks. This will adjust your threshold.


Back to the OP. This is closer for me then it s for some here. I can support the T but I'm not sure if in real time at the game I'm calling it or not.

How about we just discuss the merits of the case without you telling me what I'm thinking or why I'm thinking it when you have no idea? You think it's obvious? Fine...that's your judgment. I don't think it's anywhere near that obvious and that a reasonable case can be made on the side. Personally, I'm split on it and can see it justifiable either way, a close call, but probably a T. Disagree if you don't see it that way, but spare me the fanboy accusation.

the fanboy accusation seems to be a default charge by some here when they get opinions that don't match what they believe in.
I agree with the T. But yeah I also think it was reasonable to pass on it. I would have called it. But I'm sure if you had a room of 10 refs, there would be 3 or 4 who would have passed on it.

I don't care what fanboys think, but if you don't put a whistle on this, you're likely going to have to answer to an angry Defiance coach and the OHSAA supervisor.

The rule supports the call.

I'm surprised we haven't seen twocentsworth yet.

Biggest negative on these forums.

If that is the biggest negative, then this is a superb forum. Because sites I see that don't involve officials are full of a bunch of jacka$$es who purposely discard any semblance social etiquette and respectful discourse. You should be happy to be here.

If the shoe fits...

You've got that issue on multiple sports on multiple forums. So maybe it's not the rest of the world.

Not really. There may be the occasional thread where I'm a little over the top, but sometimes they're learning experiences. Most of my arguments are based in logical thinking or reading the rule as written and applying it myself. In the case of the Luke Kuechly ejection I was correct, unlike the majority of responses on this board. Please don't act like I'm always taking the wrong side blindly.

Yes, it's definitely better than your example, but it's still a pretty big negative. A number of members just fallback to the "fanboy" dismissal rather than engage in legitimate discussion, which defeats the purpose of them posting at all.

Maybe the reason the "fanboy" accusation gets used on this forum is because so many of the posters accused of it come on here and throw around their opinions and criticisms without having the first clue what the rules, mechanics, and philosophies of basketball officiating are.

If you want to post opinions and criticisms on an officiating message board, common sense (fanboys' favorite phrase) would suggest that you have enough knowledge about what we do in order to make reasonable, legitimate claims.

We know who the fanboys are because once championship season ends, they pretty much go into hiding until next year.

Then stop acting like fanboys. You are supposed to be an official and your judgment should be in question, not acting like someone got robbed because a judgment was made.

And as stated, there are fanboy sites that call you a lot worse when they disagree with you about an actual rule.

Peace

And that's when you get the fanboy designation. When you come to an officiating site and argue a JUDGMENT call (ie: UCLA/SMU) for the sole purpose of arguing, don't expect positive feedback. You go A LOT over the top whenever the majority of the opinions are opposite of what you believe to be true; that holds true especially in the football forum.

I'll send you $100 if you send us a video of you running fast as you can, jumping, dunking, grabbing the rim, and have your feet hit the supports behind he backboard just from momentum.

And if you don't want to be treated like a fanboy, don't use fanboy-level arguments. Whether he would land on his back or not once he hung on the rim is irrelevant if he put himself in that position illegally.

Will you lower the backboard a few feet?

$100 wouldn't pay for the ambulance ride.

My argument in that case was based on what I observed and applying the rule as written to those observations. I wasn't over the top at all in that thread. Merely a difference of opinion.

How about the thread for the Arizona v Wisconsin game in which you questioned what a crew discusses at halftime and stated that there were way more fouls called in the second half than the first half. When I provided the actual numbers (20 & 23) that proved you to be a liar, your only response was "grow up."
You were shown to be dead wrong and responded like a scolded teenager instead of an adult who desires to have a rational discussion about officiating issues. Here are two words for you "good riddance."

lol. A liar? Really? It certainly seemed that way watching the game, probably because at one point 14 of Arizona's last 16 points were from the line. How about you learn how to post without making personal attacks if you don't want to be told to grow up?

Ijs....
 

I have never seen great dunkers like Micheal Jordan, Dominque Wilkins, Darryl Dawkins or those from Phi Slamma Jamma have to hang on the rim that way to stop from falling. And this dunk was not contested or had a foul being called, but those athletic players did not need to do what this kid did and somehow never were in a hospital for a dunk. ;)

Peace

Milk through the nose.

Still no acknowledgement that you were both wrong and over the top there. Two things that you keep claiming not to be on this forum.

I'd say that post was an acknowledgment that I was wrong. I've never claimed not to ever be wrong or over the top. Nice try though.

It's true. The vast majority of my posts on here are reasonable. That some people dismiss me as a fanboy rather than engage in legitimate discussion doesn't change that fact.

What exactly is your definition of "legitimate discussion?"

When one posts their thoughts and perceptions of something, and then is shown that they are wrong based on rules, case plays, videos, etc but still keeps harping on the same thing...how is that "legitimate discussion?" :confused:

I'm amazed you stick around at all considering how much you get beat about the head and shoulders.

To each his own, I guess.

In the case of the high school game with the late T for hanging on the rim, I posted what I saw and that I didn't think it should have been called. Someone else made a point, I re-watched it and changed my position.

In the case of UCLA-SMU, it eventually became an agreement to disagree from my end, with the exception of a few personal attacks I responded to.

Why We Get Paid The Big Bucks ...
 

10-3-3: A player shall not: Grasp either basket at any time during the game except to prevent injury.

I've never been able to dunk anything larger than a tennis ball, so I don't know what's it like to dunk a basketball, but I do know that, in some cases, it looks scary.

If a dunker hangs in the rim for a second, or so, to set up his landing to prevent an injury to himself, or to a player beneath him, it's a safety issue, so play on.

If a dunker hangs on the rim to show off (Hey everybody, look at me), it's a technical foul for an unsporting act, but it can also be a technical foul because the rules makers wanted to prevent damage to the rim, backboard, or supports.

In between lies judgment.

I've got to go back and adjust my previous comment. Although I think it is more gray than some here think, I'm comfortable with the T and actually probably would have called it live in the game. He does swing his legs up im a showboating manner.

I must admit I saw a few people say good call and jumped to the conclusion that it must have been wrong. After this priming - and watching on my iPhone - I tricked myself into saying no T. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

In my case I saw the pull he gave the rim, but didn't realize how extreme it was until another poster pointed out how high his feet ended up.

Hey everyone. Came to the board today just for this reason. I was actually at this game and nearly even with the hoop on Central Catholic's side at the time of this dunk. When I watched the dunk live, my first instinct was, "that's a technical." Not only did the player emphatically swing forward, you can see him do a little shimmy with his shoulders. The end line angle really does not do the play justice. Had this play happened early in the game, it would not have even been questioned. It was one of those plays where a player is trying to put an exclamation point on a game, which, even with 40 seconds left, was still in some doubt. If the call is going to be correct in the 1st QTR, it should be correct with 40 seconds left in the 4th QTR. I give a lot of credit to the official for applying the technical. In the end it did not cost them the game (as some news outlets eagerly have protested), Defiance took the game from them.

Actually, it comes from reading a string of posts that read like a fan wrote them.

Weren't they up at least a couple possessions-worth of points after the made dunk? I could see making the argument that it "cost" them the game if the dunk had only tied it, but that wouldn't make the call incorrect.

The dunk put C.C.C. up four, then Defiance hit the ensuing free throws. They they got a layup with about 20 seconds left to tie it. Defiance hit some big shots in overtime to deal it, and they hit almost all their free throws.

Body language tells all
 

Not only was this a good call - aggressively pulls down on the rim, swings feet up, hangs there even though no one is close to being underneath him, let's rim snap back up in dramatic fashion - but after he returns to the floor he poses for the crowd with a quick fist pump to boot. Clearly the dunk was more for show than necessity. He didn't cross the line for a taunting T here but got real close to it. Together with the dunk it is more than enough evidence to support the officials judgement that a T for the dunk was warranted here.

What does this mean?

Underneath ...
 

The technical foul may be a correct interpretation, but this (above) is irrelevant to the post. The part of the rule regarding a player underneath the "grasper" was deleted back in the twentieth century, although the statement could be relevant (safety concern for player underneath) if there was a player underneath him, but there wasn't.

10-3-3: A player shall not: Grasp either basket at any time during the game except to prevent injury.

This is my thought on a lot of end-of-game calls that get questioned. While there may be times when you might change the way you call a game based on the time and/or score, this doesn't seem to be one of those times. The outcome of the game is still in question, so call it the right way.

In all honesty, there are times when I might change how something is called, but it all has to do with reaction to calls, not the calls themselves.

IOW, if a kid or coach reacts a bit more vehemently in the heat of a critical moment, I may choose to let them release some steam. In a blowout or in the second quarter, I may respond a bit differently.

I'm sure some would be offended by that (or by my admitting that), but that's just how I see it.

Mark, Jr., and I finally had a chance to watch the replay of the game this morning. The call was made by the T. And the call was absolutely, 100% correct. As I have stated on some fan boys sites: This was a Casebook Play for what should have and was called in the game.

MTD, Sr.

In before the lock. Oh, wait...