Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Please Splain this

    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    He played a mean third base back in the 1980s, too.
    I'm on the older side, so sometimes I need a little help. Did I spell something wrong? Or do you think that littles cannot coach bigs, which is a discussion that we oh so had when I started posting here.

    Or, did I miss the funny part again?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    your ridiculous attempt to convert Green's obvious walk into a righteous play.
    Just to be clear, which "travel" are we talking about here? The one that actually happened, that went uncalled, or the one that people on here and Gumble/Kellogg/Seth Davis were whining about?

    Just wondering whether or not I should actually bother responding to your post.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    I'm on the older side, so sometimes I need a little help. Did I spell something wrong? Or do you think that littles cannot coach bigs, which is a discussion that we oh so had when I started posting here.

    Or, did I miss the funny part again?
    You mis-typed Wojo as "Hojo." One of my lame attempts to be funny. Howard Johnson, HoJo, Mets 3B.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I think there is room to criticize the officials for calls and no calls.
    Of course there is. Officials are no more perfect than coaches who fail to maximize the potential of their team and/or develop their bench and/or recruit good players.

    Thing is, though, criticisms of the officials are also just as shaded with the color of the team you root for as criticisms of the coaches mentioned above. Duke fans criticize Roy Williams' end game strategy yesterday, many Carolina fans defend it. UNC fans say Coach K can't develop Mickey D talent, Duke fans scoff at that criticism.

    Point is, there are three people in the stadium who don't give a damn who wins the game from when the clock starts to when it stops. The officials check their emotions, their loyalties at the door. If not, they wouldn't be where they are, trust me.

    When everyone in the stadium, the announcers, and me sitting at home can tell by Hibbert's motion that he traveled and replay confirms it, something is wrong with Georgetown winning the game on that shot.
    With all due respect, you, fans in the stadium, and TV announcers just plain don't know the rules like the officials. Our earlier discussions of the GTown-Vandy game should make that point pretty evident. So, I think that it doesn't really matter what you *think* you see on the TV. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But the fact remains that not only do the officials have a better ange on the floor than you, they have exponentially more knowledge of the rules - and to top it off, more practical application of those rules than 99% of peope in the stands or watching on TV.

    Simply equating everything to people saying "Duke gets all the calls." doesn't negate an argument on a specific game or specific call.
    This is also true, but you will note that your comment immediately preceding this sentence was not about a SPECIFIC call, it was a general comment about the officiating. That's the problem with what officials call "fanboys." They make general comments like "the fouls are uneven," or "they should let the players decide the game," or "call it both ways." I've found it interesting, and telling, that over the weekend, the controversial calls that were made and criticized by posters here and elsewhere were, in fact, correct (see: TAMU/Memphis clock controversy; Green's supposed "switching pivot feet").

    It is also interesting to note that I need more than one hand to count the number of incorrect comments that have been made by analysts regarding the rules of basketball during this NCAA touranment, incuding our very own Jay Bilas (who incorrectly said during a first or second round game that you have to have your feet set in order to draw an offensive foul). These officiating myths start at the analyst level and perpetuate themselves through the audience, to the point where the casual fan has been so horribly misinformed that they get upset when the officials make a call that is, in fact, correct.

    Officials aren't perfect, and I would submit, some few are purposely not perfect.
    I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving some specific examples of who, and how. Cause, you know, if someone accused an ACC coach of something as nefarious as cheating, I'm sure people would want some proof. Thanks.

    In a nutshell, no, I don't feel that officials are above reproach. But if you're going to criticize, you better be sure you've got the rules down pat, and you'd better factor in that perhaps the official had a better angle than you.
    Last edited by feldspar; 03-26-2007 at 07:16 PM.

  5. #45

    Rub of the Green

    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    I recommend adding one official to the sidelines with a TV monitor who can immediately overturn or make a call...not necessarily replay, but using what he and the cameras see to help refs who by fortune or plan get it wrong.

    B
    I think we have way too much replay review as it is. Let the game be played. Missed calls, erroneous calls, minute timing errors, etc. are killing the game. Review a non-running clock, non-stopped clock, 2 or 3 points, but leave referee made calls stand. The reality is that most times they are correct. Those they miss are, in my opinion, a "rub of the green."

    No one involved in sporting contests is perfect; not players, refs, coaches, fans. No one. That is, IMHO, part of the excitement, enjoyment and surprise of games.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Maybe a little less coffee, Feldie

    You made your point about Green's move, and buy whatever Packer said. That and all the rules you want to site are not going to make what Green did anything other than a walk. Your position is ridiculous. Tell you what Feldie, you are a basketball guy and we have two big college playoffs to go, and then any number of pro playoffs. Next time you see the same move, which you should if it is legal because you have to admit it could free a guy even in a crowd, give us all a shout out right here. Name the game, time, player etc. I'll be the one holding my breath.

    It's kind of interesting, your boy Billie did an entire piece on this little (and it is little in the grand scheme of what is wrong with officiating) play and did not show film of a single other play like it. Not one. hmmm.

    Now, Feldie, don't go quoting me and then ignoring what I said. With regard to Hibbert, I said that Vandy's defense did not hold him down, the refs did. Hibbert would have gone off big time and the game would have been out of reach early were it not for uncalled fouls in the paint nearly everytime down the court, was my point. The ridiculous ticky tacky fouls called against Georgetown on the exterior were another point.

    But, you have kept the floor for a long time on a silly issue. For that, my hat is off to you. A man after my own heart. Keep smilin!

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    You made your point about Green's move, and buy whatever Packer said. That and all the rules you want to site (sic) are not going to make what Green did anything other than a walk. Your position is ridiculous. Tell you what Feldie, you are a basketball guy and we have two big college playoffs to go, and then any number of pro playoffs. Next time you see the same move, which you should if it is legal because you have to admit it could free a guy even in a crowd, give us all a shout out right here. Name the game, time, player etc. I'll be the one holding my breath.
    FWIW, add Jay Bilas to the group of those who disagree with you and recognize that the move that Green made post-travel was indeed legal.

    And I find it telling that you refuse to cite the rule that supports your contention that the move you are referring to is not a travel*. Telling, and typical.

    I'm done with you.

    ETA: Oh. I see. You have a blatant disregard for the rules of basketball (see bold). Makes even more sense now. Move along, fanboy.
    Last edited by feldspar; 03-26-2007 at 08:59 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Asheville

    And I thought my posts don't ever seem to draw enough commentary

    What have I started!

    ricks

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Feldie: You're Killin me, here

    Show me a single other play like it, just one. Watch film of Kareem. You will notice that he always shot the sky hook when standing still off his pivot foot, which was his left foot. He NEVER stepped with his left to initiate the shot without dribbling, never. Probably never occurred to him.

    Anyway, my guys won, and I ain't cryin cause they didn't call the walk. What scares me is that that somehow puts me on the same side as you. I'm gonna have to think about this one. Later. Do keep smilin, and you will let us know, won't you?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area

    feldspar perfect officials

    interesting take...boil everything down and anyone who critiques an official, a blown call, a set of officials' performance is left with platitudes and the professionalism of someone who, I assume in some attempt to at least appear manly, calls everyone "fanboy." In every work place in America there are great through terrible performances, and in every profession some bad actors, but not in officiating because--I do it and I try to be neutral so everyone else must be as perfect as I. The argument is naive and supported with overused, sometimes true sometimes not premises: when an official makes a mistake he had a bad angle (of course they are paid to have the right angle and to be in position but when they aren't it can't be critiqued); they have a better angle than anyone else so they must have been correct (used when you didn't see the play or game and even when everyone watching sees what happened and the camera confirms); and tried and true-- banal generalizations about everyone having problems with officials when their team doesn't win to minimize comments about specific plays and games...even used when who won or lost the game in question mattered not to the individual. Part of the problem with the rulebook now is all the leeway officials have been given to interpret what was once clear dos and dont's...which will always encourage disagreement.

    I won't respond again...calling people names--made up official speak to pretend "no one understands the rules but I"--, during a discussion about officiating shows that you can't look at the game neutrally, you can't even look at an officiating discussion with a neutral eye. Calling names, really is that what officials do when they are critiqued? A fascinating revelation of the maturity of these "professionals"...or is that just a few, or one?
    Last edited by Kfanarmy; 03-27-2007 at 09:56 AM.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    interesting take...boil everything down and anyone who critiques an official, a blown call, a set of officials' performance is left with platitudes and the professionalism of someone who, I assume in some attempt to at least appear manly, calls everyone "fanboy."
    Not everyone. Just those who repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the rules of basketball do not support their arguments.

    Calling names, really is that what officials do when they are critiqued?
    I would hope not. Officials are critiqued by their partners and, at the collegiate level, by a rules interpreter after every game they do. Plus, they're booed at, heckled and screamed at by bonehead fans who think they know the rules and they keep on keepin' on just fine.

    I've demonstrated that I'm more than willing to talk about the rules of basketball and how they apply to game situations. But when a supposed fan of the game blatantly refuses to acknowledge the rules of basketball as they are laid out to him/her in plain English, well then you gotta assume that this "fanboy" is acting out of pure self-interest toward his/her team. That's the only logical conclusion I can come to.

    And for crying out loud quit using the words "perfect" and "officials" in the same sentence. I've never made that argument.

  12. #52
    at some point though, its also worth recognizing that not all rules are clear cut, and involve a level of interpretation by the officials, and fans or non fans alike are entitled to critique the referees interpretations of the rules. The Oden flagrant foul or not at the end of the Xavier game for example. Sure, the officials may have more background and a better on court perspective, but its possible under the rules as they are written to interpret that play both ways (a different officiating crew might have called that differently, I doubt that all D1 officials would have let that go). Not every situation is clear cut.

    I'll agree with you that the suggestion that these interpretations are rooted in some conspiracy are bunk, but officials often deserve critique. Do they deserve as much as they get, no, but they are not beyond reproach. Many calls are indeed "outcome determinative", but that doesn't necessarily mean they were intended to be.
    Last edited by dukeENG2003; 03-27-2007 at 10:25 AM.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by feldspar View Post
    Not everyone. Just those who repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the rules of basketball do not support their arguments.


    I would hope not. Officials are critiqued by their partners and, at the collegiate level, by a rules interpreter after every game they do. Plus, they're booed at, heckled and screamed at by bonehead fans who think they know the rules and they keep on keepin' on just fine.

    I've demonstrated that I'm more than willing to talk about the rules of basketball and how they apply to game situations. But when a supposed fan of the game blatantly refuses to acknowledge the rules of basketball as they are laid out to him/her in plain English, well then you gotta assume that this "fanboy" is acting out of pure self-interest toward his/her team. That's the only logical conclusion I can come to.

    And for crying out loud quit using the words "perfect" and "officials" in the same sentence. I've never made that argument.


    Hello feldspar, a question and a comment for you.

    First, I hate that fanboy expression. Truly a grating insult. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who feels that way. And i'm guessing the officials are pretty glad to have come up with it, for that reason.

    Second, officials never, or extremly rarely, have to come forward as individuals and answer questions like this, so I'm curious, what do officials say to each other, internally, about questions like bias -- toward duke, duke's opponents, the home team, power conference teams, all-americans, whatever? Do public perceptions end up affecting officials in any way? And do conferences evaluate officials WRT fairness? If so, how?

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    First, I hate that fanboy expression. Truly a grating insult. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who feels that way. And i'm guessing the officials are pretty glad to have come up with it, for that reason.
    I can certainly appreciate your disdain for the use of the term. I'm also sure that you can appreciate how frustrating it is to have to deal with ignorant basketball fans like greybeard who refuse to listen to logic and rules which are set directly in front of their faces.

    In any event, I should have known better and should have ignored greybeard before it got to that point. I'll not make that mistake twice.

    Second, officials never, or extremly rarely, have to come forward as individuals and answer questions like this, so I'm curious, what do officials say to each other, internally, about questions like bias -- toward duke, duke's opponents, the home team, power conference teams, all-americans, whatever? Do public perceptions end up affecting officials in any way? And do conferences evaluate officials WRT fairness? If so, how?
    As I've said before, if you go into a game with the intent of calling it unfairly in favor of one team or another, you're not going to last long being a basketball official, and you're definitely not going to make it to a level like the ACC. In the circles I run around in, this talk of bias and such are dismissed pretty quickly. It's just nonsense.

    As far as public perceptions go, I think on a personal level it has to affect an official. People forget that these guys are human. The guy who ended up on the floor as a result of the OJ Mayo incident earlier this year was torn apart on message boards and in the media as having "staged" the whole thing, and his credibility was questioned. I know for a fact that he wouldn't answer his cell phone for weeks after it happened because all he was getting were calls asking him if he flopped or not. Gee, I wonder how that made him feel.

    Look, most officials get into it because they love the game of basketball. They love the opportunity to still be a part of it even though they are greying and can't get up and down a court as fast as the kids do. Some are also in it for the money, which is fine. But I find it extremely hard to swallow that there is a large contingent of officials whose express purpose is to step out on a basketball court on a given evening and try to purposely call a game in favor of a certain team.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Hello feldspar, a question and a comment for you.

    First, I hate that fanboy expression. Truly a grating insult. I'm guessing I'm not the only one who feels that way. And i'm guessing the officials are pretty glad to have come up with it, for that reason.
    It's okay Devildownunder, reliable sources have it that he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the other night.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Uh, Georgetown zoned UNC late to protect Hibbert who had 4 fouls and UNC missed 22 of their last 23 shots, jacking up a bunch of treys on tired legs just like Duke did against Florida's late zone in the 2000 NCAA tournament. Duke doesn't use zones, but should.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area

    last comment

    This is why officials don't stand for interviews:
    feldspar
    That's the problem with what officials call "fanboys."
    an official distancing himself from his own insult by hiding behind the group.

    I'll just quote the rules and leave the interpretations to the expert

    OSU-Xavier: Oden pushes the opposing player out of bounds to stop the clock after Xavier rebounds. Is it an intentional foul:
    The Rule
    Art. 6. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal
    foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player. Determination of
    whether a personal foul is intentional shall not be based on the severity
    of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
    a. Fouling a player who is away from the ball and not directly
    involved with the play.
    b. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
    c. Holding or pushing an opponent in order to stop the game clock.
    d. Pushing a player from behind to prevent a score.
    e. Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.
    The official had to decide (1) that Oden's push was a legitimate attempt to play the ball...by extending both arms straight out and shoving the opposing player out of bounds, inadvertently stopping the clock, or (2) that the contact was not excessive in order for their to be no intentional foul call. An unreasonable, at best, officiating decision. And fairly criticized because it gave OSU an opportunity to control the ball after a free throw when they shouldn't have.

    I don't want to quote the rule after every comment about a miscall or no call, nor am I prepared to declare anyone else the single expert. I'm just going to assume everyone else has a working knowledge of the rules and accept or disagree with what they see, interpret or opine.

    Officials are on the court and become part of the outcome, apparently the collective has a sore spot over criticism.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    This is why officials don't stand for interviews:
    feldspar an official distancing himself from his own insult by hiding behind the group.
    What in the world are you talking about? It's a well-known term, at least with the officials that I hang around. Calltheobvious referred to it as well in the Vandy-GTown "travel" thread. It's not "(my) own insult."

    And FWIW, the Oden call was a close one. Certainly not cut-and-dry either way, as intentional fouls rarely are.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Kfanarmy View Post
    apparently the collective has a sore spot over criticism.
    Wholly untrue. If that were so, no one would last a week.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    The Myth of Straight Man

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedevil View Post
    Uh, Georgetown zoned UNC late to protect Hibbert who had 4 fouls and UNC missed 22 of their last 23 shots, jacking up a bunch of treys on tired legs just like Duke did against Florida's late zone in the 2000 NCAA tournament. Duke doesn't use zones, but should.
    At least as I understand it, most man defenses have different zone principles operating, and that those principles switch, which makes attacking them particularly complex, because they are unpredictable. I think that K does that with his man defense, although certain of the zone principles seem to be constant (the force to the baseline, but even here, the outside rotation might differ, which watching on TV wouldn't show you). So, being wedded to man defense, does not mean zone principles are not at hand, just that the zone principles are more subtle and not predictable. For example, Duke seemed to switch all picks or weave maneuvers. However, McLure (only teasing Jumbo) usually stayed out front on the ball.

    So if his man was coming from the side and the point towards the side, McClure would stay with his man when his man got the ball on the handoff coming over the top towards the center. On the other hand, if he is guarding the guy with the ball on the top and the same play occurs, he switches. Man or zone? Where does the double come from, and who is rotating where, Man or zone?

    On the other hand, more straight forward zones, aka Syracuse's, have some man principles that likewise can change. But, they are more clearly identified as zones, aka what Georgetown employed at the end of the UNC game. JTIII uses that defense very sparingly, and when he does so, he has a backline that rivals the one Syracuse had when they won it all.

    I believe that the defenses that K uses fits with his style of helping talented young men develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of the game at both ends, and what it means to have played basketball at Duke. Like they say in the ad, "Some things are priceless."

    Sorry Feldie, I can't reference no rule book; basketball is a game to be played, not a book to be read.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •