I still don't get it

[Chicago 1995]

That's the only other conclusion that you can think of? So, you're working from the standpoint of choosing between an absurd conclusion and an unprovable one? Well, seems like you should be the person choosing the officiating crew. What basis would you use to decide?

We can agree on one thing.

The conclusion that Karl Hess is one of the three best officials in college, hence, he's been awarded the single most important game of the year, is absurd.

Listen, I'm not Hank Nichols. I'm not as qualified as the committee that feldspar lists above. Point feldspar, by the way.

Is that committee infallible?

Before you say yes, that's Ted Hillary, Olandis Poole and Mike Hall waiving from obscurity. Before you say yes, think back to the 12 games played last weekend. Forgive me if the officiating in those games, as I've identified above, doesn't give me much faith in the committee's ability correctly select the best officials for the biggest games.

How would I do it differently? I'd have to think about it. Hadn't considered it, and its a good question.

Even taking away all that, the disconnect here is pretty amazing. While I'm not Hank Nichols, I'm not some fanboy who only became interested in basketball when I got accepted at Duke. Feldspar will just pat me on the head, and send me on my way saying that if I *really* understood the game, I'd trust in Karl Hess too.

Here's the problem. I've played. I've coached. I've even officiated. Additionally, I've got a close group of friends all of whom are very knowledgeable basketball fans and all of whom have extensive experience in basketball. We're a pretty bright group.

And not one of us would defend Karl Hess. Do you not understand why Hess's choice puzzles me and why I don't see it as giving Karl more credibility, but giving the committee less?

[feldspar]

Feldspar will just pat me on the head, and send me on my way saying that if I *really* understood the game, I'd trust in Karl Hess too.

Oh, spare me. If you want to have a rules discussion, let's have a rules discussion. But that's not what you're interested in. You're interested in making generalized gripes about certain officials and certain games, based on nothing more than over-used concepts about officiating like inconsistency, calling it both ways and fouls being uneven.

Tell you what. I'm gonna make a concerted effort to tape the semi-final and final games over the weekend. You should do the same. Then we can both go through play-by-play and you can point out the specific calls that you object to, especially the ones made by the infamous Karl Hess. That's what the evaluators do. They evaluate play-by-play.

Are you game?

Do you not understand why Hess's choice puzzles me and why I don't see it as giving Karl more credibility, but giving the committee less?

No, because you've continually failed to substantiate your beef with Karl Hess.

[cato]

Here's the problem. I've played. I've coached. I've even officiated. Additionally, I've got a close group of friends all of whom are very knowledgeable basketball fans and all of whom have extensive experience in basketball. We're a pretty bright group.

And not one of us would defend Karl Hess. Do you not understand why Hess's choice puzzles me and why I don't see it as giving Karl more credibility, but giving the committee less?

Okay. You're puzzled. You don't like Karl Hess and have more knowledge about basketball than Former_Duke_Athlete. All well and good. I'm not crying foul.

Here's what I think is absurd:

I take it as concrete proof of my assumption that those that manage and oversee officials have absolutely no concern about consistency in officiating or the appearance of consistency in how a game is called from one half or one end to another.

Do you not see why I think that is a baseless accusation?

[Chicago 1995]

Oh, spare me. If you want to have a rules discussion, let's have a rules discussion. But that's not what you're interested in. You're interested in making generalized gripes about certain officials and certain games, based on nothing more than over-used concepts about officiating like inconsistency, calling it both ways and fouls being uneven.

First off, that was meant tongue-in-cheek.

I should have used an emoticon or something since I should have realized that any criticism of an official was likely to be responded to in this serious a manner. I'm expecting to be notified of my fine by John Swofford at any moment.

The point I'm trying to make is not about specific rules. It's about rules enforcement. By parsing it down to a single call here and a single call there, you miss the point I'm trying to make which goes to the larger pattern.

There are *obvious* missed calls -- the shot clock violation in the KU-SIU game is the most recent example. That's not the problem. There are also obvious misunderstandings of the rules -- Jeff Green's travel. The problem I'm trying to point out about and with Karl Hess among others has almost nothing to do with the technical side of officiating and rules interpretation.

The problem isn't in the hard calls, it's in the easy ones.

The problem that I'm trying to get at is how the rules are enforced over the 40 minutes of game play and how they are enforced over the 94 feet of court, and you may well try to gloss over it, but consistency in the application of the rules is for most observers, the biggest problem in officiating.

Why is Roy Hibbert's second foul called when three possessions later, Tyler Hansbrough uses the same tactic to defend Vernon Macklin in the post? Why does contact on Hansbrough as he makes his offensive move merit a whistle when similar contact on Hibbert making a move does not? Why does contact with the body by a UT defender on a Mike Conley lay-up attempt result in two FTs in the second half when it didn't in the first? Why does it result in two FTs for Conley when similar contact by Ron Lewis on Chris Lofton does not?

In most of those cases, the technical aspect of the rules is irrelevant. It may be a judgment call whether it is a foul or not, but once you've made the judgment in one instance, why does the judgment change from half to half? Why does it change from end to end? That's the question I'm asking, and it's not something you've addressed, hiding behind needing specific examples to discuss.

I know you're a big basketball fan, and the phenomenon I'm describing happens enough that even if you didn't watch G'Town - UNC or OSU - UT, you've certainly watched a game where the officiating tightened up in the second half or loosened up, or where one team was allowed to play more physically than it's opponent. Certainly you have enough of an understanding of the concept in general to respond. But you haven't.

Tell you what. I'm gonna make a concerted effort to tape the semi-final and final games over the weekend. You should do the same. Then we can both go through play-by-play and you can point out the specific calls that you object to, especially the ones made by the infamous Karl Hess. That's what the evaluators do. They evaluate play-by-play.

Are you game?.

Sure. I suspect I'll learn quite a bit, and I suspect you might too. If nothing else, I suspect you're going to have a better idea what I'm talking about. I will warrant up front that I've got no idea how available I'm going to be to do this immediately. I don't get paid to post on this BBS, and taking an additional six to eight hours to breakdown game film isn't going to sit well with my pregnant wife, who really wants me to get the nursery done.

No, because you've continually failed to substantiate your beef with Karl Hess.

Are you related to Karl Hess? I'm only half joking.

I ask because you are the only person I've ever seen defend him. ACC coaches don't like him. Coach K doesn't like him. I've never, ever heard anyone actually suggest Karl Hess was good as an official or well-respected other than you.

I have substantiated my beef with Karl Hess, FWIW. I've sited three games in particular, and I rest on his body of work as a whole to suggest that his body of work does not merit the honor he apparently is about to be bestowed.

I can tell you that I think Karl is too easily influenced by the momentum of the game, by the crowd and by those running up and down the sidelines. ACC Coaches agree with me on that one, by the way. I can also tell you that Karl is one of the group of officials -- Ted Valentine's the king -- who make the officials way, way too much part of the game. Playing up calls to the crowd. Taking, when it presents itself, the opportunity to make a critical call that everyone will be talking about for days to come. Officials who show up the game itself.

[feldspar]

I ask because you are the only person I've ever seen defend him. ACC coaches don't like him. Coach K doesn't like him. I've never, ever heard anyone actually suggest Karl Hess was good as an official or well-respected other than you.

The NCAA Rules and Officiating committee for one.

Oh, but wait. You've already established that they're full of crap...for some reason.

So, nevermind.

[Chicago 1995]

The NCAA Rules and Officiating committee for one.

Oh, but wait. You've already established that they're full of crap...for some reason.

So, nevermind.

There's a whole lot else up there for you to respond to, Karl.

[feldspar]

There's a whole lot else up there for you to respond to, Karl.

Unfortunately, I don't have the benefit of having any of the games that you reference on tape. Thus, I feel less than able to respond to your claims.

I feel even less inclined given your irrational fear of a certain NCAA official and the entire governing body of NCAA officiating. I feel like I'm talking to someone who's been taking crazy pills.

I will say that I find it highly improbable that in every case you cite, the contact in the two examples is exactly the same. I'm willing to bet, though, that in some cases, the officials missed a call, but in some cases, there is a rule application that perhaps you are not aware of. Are you willing to concede the latter?

[Chicago 1995]

Unfortunately, I don't have the benefit of having any of the games that you reference on tape. Thus, I feel less than able to respond to your claims.

So without a tape, you're not even going to discuss the concept of inconsistency in officiating from half to half or end to end in the same game? If you are, I guess that's fine, but I'm curious, since you are an official, as to your position as to inconsistency on the whole.

I feel even less inclined given your irrational fear of a certain NCAA official and the entire governing body of NCAA officiating. I feel like I'm talking to someone who's been taking crazy pills.

Crazy pills? Please. I don't have an irrational fear of Karl Hess. I just happen to think he's a mediocre offical. I also don't have an irrational fear of the NCAA's governing body. I just don't think they are infallible. My rhetoric may be a little colorful, but I'm not Mr. Tinfoil Hat and Black Helicopter, and I don't think I've said anything in this thread that justify the suggestion of "crazy pills."

I will say that I find it highly improbable that in every case you cite, the contact in the two examples is exactly the same. I'm willing to bet, though, that in some cases, the officials missed a call, but in some cases, there is a rule application that perhaps you are not aware of. Are you willing to concede the latter?

Two points.

First, of course the contact isn't "exactly" the same, but there's no requirement in the rules for it to be. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. Whether the contact with a shooter occurs on his right side or his left, when the defender is leaving his feet or coming down, doesn't matter generally.

Second, of course I'll concede the latter. I don't think I've said anything here to suggest otherwise.

[Kfanarmy]

The problem (defined as a perceived lack of consistency) is the 1/3 that we see as judgment/discretion. I can't find too many actual rules in the book that require a great deal of judgment...the rule 'application' in most cases seems to feed the desire of most fans to "let em play." --used by many when the favored team is having fouls called against it -- Most of the contact now allowed in college basketball, post play for example, should draw a foul if you read the rule book strictly. (you can't displace a player through contact without a foul). But the application of the post play rules allow heavier or stronger offensive players to back the defender under the basket through force and allows heavier or stronger defensive players to move offensive players out of the paint. Though both acts are against the rules, post-play, in large part, isn't called in accordance with the rules and fouls aren't called at near the rate the rules would require to stop pushing...so when a foul is to be called has become a matter of the officials judgement involving perception of advantage, degree of contact, etc. It is very difficult to have the necessary vantage point to consistently apply the discretion required. I would personally rather that an official call a foul strictly in accordance with the base rule or not call it at all.