PDA

View Full Version : I still don't get it



godukecom
03-25-2007, 08:34 PM
How did UNC lose? I watched this game LIVE and i still can't figure it out. I dont like UNC but I am also a realist, and at no point late in that game (even early into OT) did I think G'town was going to lose.

Why didnt UNC go inside when hibbert had 4 fouls and they were up 12? why did danny green shoot those stupid threes?

I have heard these two explanations telling me how unc failed to put gtown away, but i still don't get it; How did Georgetown win?

FireOgilvie
03-25-2007, 08:36 PM
Great coaching down the stretch by Roy Williams. He consistently has the most talented people on the floor... he just has no idea what to do with them in close games.

imagepro
03-25-2007, 08:46 PM
and he actually said he wanted to go inside. He said Greens open (but missed) 3, early in the shot clock was NOT what he wanted. He said he wanted to go inside to TH or BW and try to get to the line, as Hibbert had 4. He said he thought they could "finish the game against G-Towns subs."

So, lets be REAL here fans. Don't blame Roy, and say he can't coach. Oh yes he can. We like to "think" he can't , but he surely can. He wanted to go inside, but his kids maybe felt the pressure, rushed, panicked, wanted to be the hero or whatever, I don't know. Roy said several of the jumpers and 3s were not what he wanted.

Point is this- a coach (even ours) can't get on the floor in a game like he can in practice and TELL a kid what to do. Under IMMENSE pressure, kids react instinctively. Things happen very quickly. In a fraction of a second. Roy is not to blame, his kids didn't execute. That simple.

Be respectful and objective. You may not believe in karma, but I do!

godukecom
03-25-2007, 08:50 PM
but how did they cool off so fast?
even as OT started, i thought that UNC would trade baskets and eventually get the ball with a 2 point lead and gtown would have to foul...

how did unc get shut out in overtime?

and BTW, nice job by hibbert. those 2 blocks with 4 fouls reminded me of shel last year. gutsy, clean, great play to seal the deal

but yeah, back to all the misses, how did this team with the best scorers in the country not score for the first 4:52.5? and by then it was over...

dukelifer
03-25-2007, 08:52 PM
How did UNC lose? I watched this game LIVE and i still can't figure it out. I dont like UNC but I am also a realist, and at no point late in that game (even early into OT) did I think G'town was going to lose.

Why didnt UNC go inside when hibbert had 4 fouls and they were up 12? why did danny green shoot those stupid threes?

I have heard these two explanations telling me how unc failed to put gtown away, but i still don't get it; How did Georgetown win?

All year I thought Carolina was vulnerable in a close game. They really are not sure who to go to. Hansblah relies on being fouled- but the refs tend to stop calling those fouls that he usually gets late in games. Ellington is a shaky shooter when under pressure- has been all year. He is great when the team is up by 10. Terry is not a end of game player. Wright needs a great pass to be in a position to sore and Lawson is possible end of game player but his size is a problem and he is unreliable outside shooter at best. So down the stretch they can struggle. Carolina had this game and then started to shoot jumpers with 5 minute sto go in regulation. They were scoring at will inside and got away from it. I suspect they wanted to get a knockout blow and it never came. At the end - they just did not know who to go to. Terry and Lawson tried but did not deliver. They bever found their goto guy. Sometimes being young is an excuse.

Also credit Georgetown. They never panicked and just made great plays. At the end, UNC was just hoping to get fouled because they were missing from the floor and were living on the line. UNC lets this one get away and they will live with that for a long while. Roy will take some heat for this I am sure. Did he play too many players? Did he rely too much on his Freshman- how does Ellington take the last shot? Don't feel sorry for them though. Actually, it is best I have felt watching a ball game the past few weeks. 25 years ago, UNC beat the Hoyas on a jumper by Jordan and a botched last play by Freddy Brown. Today the basketball gods gave something back to the Hoyas. You have to have patience.

BlueDevilBaby
03-25-2007, 09:04 PM
I agree, Carolina had no idea who the go-to-guy was during crunch time. H:D as been their achilles "heel" during close games.

OldSchool
03-25-2007, 09:11 PM
The same thing happened to Carolina in this game that happened to Duke in a number of games this year -- they got a somewhat comfortable lead and then as Georgetown started to get back into it, Carolina got too tight at the end when it counted.

Hansbrough late in the game trying to play under the rim was frustrated by the much bigger Hibbard and the athletic Green - the same feeling he is going to experience in the NBA.

Virginian
03-25-2007, 09:12 PM
So many people lament Coach K's resorting to stall ball so often, but a little clock management would have gone a long way for UNC tonight.

UNC was up 10 with about 5 to play (if I recall the clock correctly) and made no attempt to run ANY time off the clock. They just kept launching those threes with no one under the basket to get rebounds. And they made ZERO shots for about the next 8 or 9 minutes. That didn't stop them from launching those same shots with the same lack of effect.

Just amazing. They had no idea what to do down the stretch.

I'm sure the writers will chalk it up to a young team with lack of experience. If it were Duke they'd blame the coach. Let's see if they do the same vis-a-vis Roy.

Duke76
03-25-2007, 09:13 PM
momentum is a funny thing, when it goes it goes.

This feels like what happened to us against, was it Indiana when we were up 15 or so in the second half whn we had Boozer and Williams etc. There are few other games when we had it won in the final four or regional finals and the momentum changed and before you knew what happened it was over.

I think the zone defense really flustered UNC in the last 8 minutes. They couldn't position down low to receive a pass and the sure as hell didn't get one offensive rebound in the last 5-6 minutes. It was beautiful to see.

Listened to both press conferences, typical sad sack Roy and Tyler, both about to cry.

Coach Thompson very articlulate nice guy and obviously really understands the game. Great, nice kids as well.

FireOgilvie
03-25-2007, 09:15 PM
The UNC bias really amazes me. It's my favorite part of the rivalry. I guess that's what Duke gets for not having a Journalism major.

vick
03-25-2007, 09:22 PM
What I find interesting is that Georgetown kept up with a fairly quick pace while playing four guys over 35 minutes and Hibbert 31 minutes (and he would have played more without foul trouble). Now it was an OT game, but even if it were just 40 minutes, we're looking at 4 of 5 starters over 30 minutes. Kind of makes you pause when you read about how Duke needs to give this guy or that guy more minutes to keep up with Carolina...

Minutes taken from ESPN.com, which isn't always reliable about this sort of thing, although it tracks pretty well with my memory for this game.

dockfan
03-25-2007, 09:27 PM
I thought Oleroyweeums called too many timeouts at the end of the 2nd half, and only built up the game pressure on his team and destroyed any rhythm they had.

I also failed to understand all season why Danny Green got so much PT, and thought he really hurt them against G'town. Maybe he absolutely blows up in practice, and hits all his threes, but I haven't seen it in a game. And he is really not a very good ballhandler.

The Heels also did a poor job of looking inside for Brandan Wright against the G'town zone. He was wide open several times.

Plus, what ever happened to Bobby Fraser? I like that kid's game, and I know he hurt his ankle/foot/leg, but I guess he's no longer as good as Green, Ginyard, Thomas, and Miller this year???

jipops
03-25-2007, 09:28 PM
Roy is obviously a great, great coach, without a doubt. He recruits great players and sticks to a very successful philosophy.

HOWEVER,

Did anyone else notice the play drawn up at the end of regulation for Ellington? This was the exact same play that beat UConn back in '04 (McCants jumper) and the play that JJ said he saw coming in Cameron back in '05. I've also seen this same play run countless other times when working with end of half situations. Wouldn't you think Roy would come up with something new, especially given all the other options he has? Just seems interesting that he draws up the very same high screen with the shooter swinging over the elbow outside the 3pt arc. Granted this is obviously not what lost the game for UNC but was a play that was interestingly predictable.

Bob Green
03-25-2007, 10:24 PM
So many people lament Coach K's resorting to stall ball so often, but a little clock management would have gone a long way for UNC tonight.



Great point!!! Pass the ball & find a good shot while the clock goes tick, tick, tick...

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

RockyMtDevil
03-25-2007, 10:40 PM
It's also possible that playing 10 guys big minutes all year failed to establish the go to guy at the end of game...

Bob Green
03-26-2007, 01:51 AM
I believe Carolina's depth hurt them in this game. Coach Williams played 12 players with 8 getting double digit minutes. D. Green played 9 minutes and A. Stephenson played 8. Q. Thomas and B. Frasor 2 minutes each. IMO, D. Green's 9 minutes were a negative. Let's look at his numbers compared to D. Thompson:

Green: 9 minutes, 3 points, 0-6 FGs (including 0-4 3-point attempts), 3-4 FTs, 1 rebound, 0 assists, 0 turnovers, 1 block shot, 2 steals

Thompson: 21 minutes, 14 points, 6-7 FGs, 2-2 FTs, 6 rebounds, 0 assists, 1 turnover, 2 blocked shots, 1 steal

If Deon Thompson plays 30 minutes and Danny Green plays zero minutes just maybe Carolina could've grabbed a rebound or two down the stretch when Georgetown made their big run. Instead, Green is jacking up bricks from behind the arc.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

heyman25
03-26-2007, 03:07 AM
We have Jay Bilas who goes out of his way to give no credit to Duke,but fawns over UNC. Seth Davis is tolerable.But I hope the anti Duke media at the Winston Salem regional get exposed.

ricks68
03-26-2007, 03:49 AM
O.K., I want us to win and UNC to lose, but let's be realistic. I recorded the game and watched it before knowing the outcome. I replayed the calls of the refs throughout the entire game and also replayed in slo-mo most of the calls I thought they should have made. I think the calls were spot-on the first half, except for the many times the Georgetown players blatantly pushed off the UNC guys on the in-bounds passes after UNC baskets. Obviously, that means I think that UNC should have had more of the calls in their favor.

The crowd did not see what I could see during slo-mo replays, and therefore got on the refs. The result of which really intimidated the refs so that they stopped calling fouls against Georgetown a lot during the beginning of the first half. There were a number of really bad fouls under the basket that should have been called against Georgetown, including one where a UNC player came up with a tough rebound and the Georgetown player grabbed him by the neck and began to pull him down. The UNC player pulled away and went down the court with a no-call by the refs. It continued from there with more arms and elbow pushing along with gabbing by Georgetown players resulting in no-calls.

After that, the UNC guys began to push back some, resulting in no-calls again. And so it went. Because Georgetown was more physical, they won out. The refs did it. In my opinion, they lost control of the game due to the intimidation factor of the fans. When that happened, instead of Roy and the UNC whinning about the no-calls, the UNC team just tried to fight back physically, and got out-manned. Then they missed like 23 shots in a row due to immature shot selection and execution.

I don't think it was a case of the fans wanting the refs to let them play, ala the Connecticut massacre of us by the refs a few years ago in the FF, where even the UCONN fans were the loudest chanting "let them play"--and that was during the bad calls on Shav and the rest of our players.

I don't think the refs were fair to UNC or to college bball fans. If Fla and Georgetown make the final game and the refs do the same, it could get pretty violent considering how emotional some of the Fla players are.

I know I'm opening up the possibility of a lot of negative comments here to this post, but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em. I love Duke and dislike UNC, but I can't let that interfere with my judgement of what I feel is an injustice.

Oh, and did you catch the absolutely stupid replay and remarks by Billy Packer on the "travel" dispute? He aired the replay that definitely showed the pivot (right) foot being moved and reset even before the move to the basket that should have been labelled as the original violation. Then he ignores it and says that the replay is not a travel because of stuff after that not even pertains to that initial movement. Then he refers back to it and claims that the refs can't see everything that happens so fast during a game, and that things don't get called because of that and that's the reason it was a fair call. What a bunch of garbage. He does that all the time. Check it out, Feldspar.

ricks

ItalianDevil
03-26-2007, 07:52 AM
the simply stopped playing, and I'm saying this with the greatest possible grin on my face. Went to bed wayyyyy late (European time), but it was so worthy, believe me!!!!! choke choke choke
And now timewarp me to next October.....
GO DEVILS!!!!!!!

greybeard
03-26-2007, 11:43 AM
All year I thought Carolina was vulnerable in a close game. They really are not sure who to go to. Hansblah relies on being fouled- but the refs tend to stop calling those fouls that he usually gets late in games. Ellington is a shaky shooter when under pressure- has been all year. He is great when the team is up by 10. Terry is not a end of game player. Wright needs a great pass to be in a position to sore and Lawson is possible end of game player but his size is a problem and he is unreliable outside shooter at best. So down the stretch they can struggle. Carolina had this game and then started to shoot jumpers with 5 minute sto go in regulation. They were scoring at will inside and got away from it. I suspect they wanted to get a knockout blow and it never came. At the end - they just did not know who to go to. Terry and Lawson tried but did not deliver. They bever found their goto guy. Sometimes being young is an excuse.

Also credit Georgetown. They never panicked and just made great plays. At the end, UNC was just hoping to get fouled because they were missing from the floor and were living on the line. UNC lets this one get away and they will live with that for a long while. Roy will take some heat for this I am sure. Did he play too many players? Did he rely too much on his Freshman- how does Ellington take the last shot? Don't feel sorry for them though. Actually, it is best I have felt watching a ball game the past few weeks. 25 years ago, UNC beat the Hoyas on a jumper by Jordan and a botched last play by Freddy Brown. Today the basketball gods gave something back to the Hoyas. You have to have patience.

Really enjoyed this take! Thanks.

Classof06
03-26-2007, 12:34 PM
I agree with much of what has been said so far. This UNC team has shown at various times throughout the year that they are vulnerable to mental breakdowns (loss at Maryland, getting swept by V Tech, etc). Quite simply, the mentally tougher team beat the more talented one. I also agree with virgnian that had UNC gone to "stall ball", they probably would have never lost that lead. Even if they didn't go stall ball, they stopped attacking the basket and settled for jumpshots. But you know what they say, it's hard to make shots when you have both of your hands wrapped around you neck, haha.

On another point, I partially disagree with what was said on the DBR front page. It said that UNC beat themselves and implied that Georgetown wasn't good enough to give UNC those kinds of problems. I agree that Georgetown got back into the game and sent it to OT because of UNC's miscues; you can't argue UNC's self-inflicted wounds in regulation. But regardless of bad shots, momentum, etc., when OT started, that game was there for the taking and Georgetown took it. UNC didn't give the game away by being outscored 15-3 in OT; Georgetown had a lot to almost everything to do with that and should be given the appropriate credit. Lastly, I would like to thank that good people at Georgetown for making my Sunday bearable. I couldn't imagine having to watch Ol' Roy and "Psycho T" cut down those nets...

KandG
03-26-2007, 12:45 PM
I was shocked and overjoyed by the outcome, but the collapse was striking mainly for its timing in such a big game. Remember, this is the same Tar Heel team that gave up a 32-9 run to *Eastern Kentucky* in the first round -- nearly blowing all of a 27 point lead over a vastly inferior team.

In retrospect, that 18-0 run by the Heels to overcome USC was the best thing that could have happened from a Georgetown point of view -- it made the Heels think they were invincible, and could just turn it on no matter what the circumstance. When things started getting tough against the Hoyas, though, suddenly, the switch just flipped off.

feldspar
03-26-2007, 02:10 PM
I wasn't surprised that GTown came back and tied it. They've had a propensity for doing that in this tournament, and UNC has done a great job in falling asleep at the wheel in this tournament.

I was shocked, however at the inability of UNC to put the ball in the basket AT ALL until 7.5 seconds were left in overtime. That's just...that's...well, that's just sad. In a good way.

Richard Berg
03-26-2007, 03:19 PM
Anyone else annoyed that UNC was still fouling with 5 seconds left in overtime? Maybe Coach K had a point after all.

Indoor66
03-26-2007, 03:21 PM
Yes, I thought it carried the "learning process" to the extreme.

dukeENG2003
03-26-2007, 03:32 PM
Oh, and did you catch the absolutely stupid replay and remarks by Billy Packer on the "travel" dispute? He aired the replay that definitely showed the pivot (right) foot being moved and reset even before the move to the basket that should have been labelled as the original violation. Then he ignores it and says that the replay is not a travel because of stuff after that not even pertains to that initial movement. Then he refers back to it and claims that the refs can't see everything that happens so fast during a game, and that things don't get called because of that and that's the reason it was a fair call. What a bunch of garbage. He does that all the time. Check it out, Feldspar.
ricks

Another great Billy Packerism, was his claim that you can block a shot off the backboard as long as it is still going up (this was on a UNC shot where there was a foul called and Hibert swatted it away off the glass after the whistle). I'm not sure whether he is technically correct or not on that (anybody ever heard of this, cuz I always thought as soon as it hits the glass, its a goal tend), but unless a ball is shot with TOPspin, it will NEVER go up after it hits the glass, it will ALWAYS go down unless it has a truly odd trajectory. . .

cato
03-26-2007, 03:41 PM
Another great Billy Packerism, was his claim that you can block a shot off the backboard as long as it is still going up (this was on a UNC shot where there was a foul called and Hibert swatted it away off the glass after the whistle). I'm not sure whether he is technically correct or not on that (anybody ever heard of this, cuz I always thought as soon as it hits the glass, its a goal tend), but unless a ball is shot with TOPspin, it will NEVER go up after it hits the glass, it will ALWAYS go down unless it has a truly odd trajectory. . .

AFAIK, that is correct in college ball. I believe it is in the pros that the rule is simply whether it has touched the glass.

Also, a lay-up could very well continue to go up after hitting the glass.

ACCBBallFan
03-26-2007, 03:43 PM
I too felt the game reminded me of many Duke games this year, blow a big lead and lose at the end.

Besides the no go to guy, I think depth hurt in another way. The best UNC players are not used to playing so many minutes or under so much pressure. They ran out of gas, got winded at the end of second half and in OT, legs went and jumpers did not go in, missed FTs, shots get blocked, etc.

As much as I hate to agree with Packer, Georgetown did look like the more confident team and refs do make calls in favor of team playing confidently and aggressively, human nature, just as they did in UNC's favor in first 30 minutes.

feldspar
03-26-2007, 03:43 PM
Oh, and did you catch the absolutely stupid replay and remarks by Billy Packer on the "travel" dispute? He aired the replay that definitely showed the pivot (right) foot being moved and reset even before the move to the basket that should have been labelled as the original violation. Then he ignores it and says that the replay is not a travel because of stuff after that not even pertains to that initial movement. Then he refers back to it and claims that the refs can't see everything that happens so fast during a game, and that things don't get called because of that and that's the reason it was a fair call. What a bunch of garbage. He does that all the time. Check it out, Feldspar.

You misunderstood Packer. What he was saying, in essence, is that it was not the type of travel that Gumble/Kellogg/Davis were originally purporting it to be. It was a travel since his pivot foot left the ground for a split second without the ref seeing it.

As calltheobvious has pointed out, that's an incredibly hard travel for a ref to see. We can only see it definitively with the aid of slow-mo replay and a zoom in. And, again as cto says, you better be 10000% sure it's a travel if you're going to call it in the final seconds of that close of a game.

That was Packer's point. That the original explanation of the travel by Gumbel, et al, was bogus, but that they got bailed out by the slow-mo replay.

phaedrus
03-26-2007, 03:51 PM
Another great Billy Packerism, was his claim that you can block a shot off the backboard as long as it is still going up (this was on a UNC shot where there was a foul called and Hibert swatted it away off the glass after the whistle). I'm not sure whether he is technically correct or not on that (anybody ever heard of this, cuz I always thought as soon as it hits the glass, its a goal tend), but unless a ball is shot with TOPspin, it will NEVER go up after it hits the glass, it will ALWAYS go down unless it has a truly odd trajectory. . .

there's no reason a ball, if shot from below the backboard, won't continue to go up after hitting the backboard. it would only need topspin if it was shot at the level of the backboard or above - which doesn't happen very often, unless you're dwight howard.

feldspar
03-26-2007, 04:01 PM
Goaltending has nothing to do with the backboard. It's all about the upward/downward flight of the ball.

Once again, Billy Packer was correct.

If he keeps this up, I might actually have to consider resepecting him as an analyst.

Nah...

greybeard
03-26-2007, 04:11 PM
Hibbert is among the most articulate and smartest players in the game. He is incredibly well coordinated, has great feet, and his body is hardening and filling out week by week. By far, the best offensive center in the game. The play of the game in my opinion came in the first half. He took Hansborough off the dribble from the top of the key, two dribbles down the right side of the lane, spins and lays it up lefty. He took Hansborough's inside's out with that play. Hansborough was desparately trying to establish a little jump shot after that, so he could draw Hibbert and then beat him off the dribble, to you know, establish his dominance as the inside player with the moves, and that killed Carolina. Who was going to throw it inside with Hansborough having been taken completely out of his game? That's why they didn't go inside. Hansborough was cooked.

Green, I've been telling you guys since before the game in Cameron, is the real, real deal. He has a tremendous lower body, very, very dense but runs like a greyhound. You just do not beat him down the court. And, you don't move him out, and, when he gets his hands on the ball, the discussion is over. He is also, according to JTIII, the smartest ball player he ever coached who makes decisions. There are no errors of hesitation in most of Green's game; he sees it, computes it, does it, in a way that is startling. With the tutalege of JTIII, he plays with an intelligence about the game that just makes players better, which is rare coming from a forward, very, very rare. Hibbert does the same, btw, only somewhat less effectively, but only for now.

The freshman forward was the freshman of the year in the big east, and knows no fear. He will do what needs to be done when it counts, shoot the three, drive the basket, get the ball. And, he did all that in that game, especially in the second half.

Now, and you guys ain't gonna like this, Ewing has been spectacular off the bench in the second half of the season, better than anyone UNC had coming in. Very smart and very, very quick and athletic. Sometimes goes a little too fast for himself, but he is a stone competitor who has been making plays down the stretch too.

The starting guards you know about, and Lawson was kept in check. The guy that has gotten better and better and few people talk about, but who will shut you down, is what's his names son, you know, the Celtic's coaches kid. He is about as good an on-ball defender against points as you will find.

And, that big kid who came in for Hibbert, the freshman, no. 1 I think, he is a big time player, who has been shy about his game. But, I'm sure Wright knows who he is, and he did more than well.

Crawford, who got sick and did not play much this year, came in and did what he does. Stuck a needed three before the half.

Bottom line, the better team won; a more veteran team, with an approach on the offensive side of the ball that defeats and breaks teams down. They get what is easy, what is in rhythm, what is magical (back door cuts run with two guys, the first drawing the defender the second catching a laying it in) than leave you to get what is troubling, what is just a tad out of your rhythm, or at a time and from a spot that you were not expecting, with the ever present thought that you should be doing something else or someone like Ewing, or Green will be flying at you.

No way UNC was 10 points better than Georgetown that first half and Georgetown has made dinner out of second half domination for quite some time.

BTW, did anybody notice how all the talking heads were saying that Georgetown needed to slow Carolina down, keep the score low, to have a chance. Whenever anybody said that to GTIII, he chuckled and said, that no one had done that to UNC yet and that he didn't think that it was possible. The guy can coach em up, as the old ball coach would say.

So, the better team won, imo, UNC's incredible start notwithstanding. And, Rick, your implication that the ref's influenced the outcome is an unexceptional point. As long as they do not call the game according to the rules, and they do not do that, then it will always be the case that how they chose to call the game will often be outcome determinative. Georgetown is a completely finese team. If they called the game the way it should be inside the paint, Hibbert would have had 30, if not against UNC, then certainly against Vandy.

But, calling it straight up, the way they did back in the day, very few teams could compete with Georgetown the way it is playing. What's really interesting is that Ohio State is definitely one of them.

feldspar
03-26-2007, 04:21 PM
As long as they do not call the game according to the rules, and they do not do that, then it will always be the case that how they chose to call the game will often be outcome determinative.

I would just love to hear your rationalization for this statement.

dukeENG2003
03-26-2007, 04:26 PM
AFAIK, that is correct in college ball. I believe it is in the pros that the rule is simply whether it has touched the glass.

Also, a lay-up could very well continue to go up after hitting the glass.

I guess I stand corrected about the rule, Billy Packer was right about the rule, but watch the replay of that play, and this was NOT one of those funky shots (the shot was from about 8 feet away, even a granny shot from right at your feet from that distance can't continue to travel upwards after hitting the glass, again, if you don't believe me, try it). I'm grappling in my head with how such a shot could be created, and I just can't see it.

try this sometime, and see what kind of crazy shots you have to come up with to make that happen. I guess it IS pros only where the rule is more clearly defined, but I think for good reason.

While I'm getting corrected, I've heard announcers several times say that .3 seconds is not enough time to catch and shoot, is this yet another rules difference between college and the pros, b/c in the NBA, .3 seconds IS long enough (anything less isn't), at least I thought so. Correct away. . .

feldspar
03-26-2007, 04:32 PM
While I'm getting corrected, I've heard announcers several times say that .3 seconds is not enough time to catch and shoot, is this yet another rules difference between college and the pros, b/c in the NBA, .3 seconds IS long enough (anything less isn't), at least I thought so. Correct away. . .
Rule 4-67-5.

If there is .3 seconds or less left on the clock upon resumption of play, it can only be a tap, not a catch and shoot.

greybeard
03-26-2007, 04:55 PM
I would just love to hear your rationalization for this statement.

The rules of the game are that you may not carry the ball. But, J Will carried it all the time, on that hesitation pull up from three, when the guy would shift his weight forward on his toes to prepare for at least putting his hand up if Jay shot it, Jay would be holding the ball with his hand on the side and then kill the guy with a crossover. Against the rules, but almost never called. You call that all the time, J Will is still hands down a great ballplayer, the best, but not unguardable. You let him do that carry thing, and nobody can guard him. If Duke blows people out, letting JWill do that ain't outcome determinative. In several of the Maryland games, sorry about that Fman, Duke loses.

The rules basically say that if there is serious contact, then somebody fouled somebody, except on blockouts. Now, people body up on post players like the start of a scrum in that other football game. That is a foul. You call it, then nobody guards Hibbert. Nobody. Period. The way Vandy and the team before them guarded Hibbert was that guys would position themselves with their bodies on him that would make it virtually impossible for him to move without pushing an arm or something of theirs out of the way. You call that an offensive foul and you change the game. You call them for fouling him, which imo you have to because that is my understanding of what the game requires, the games are not close.

As it is, we are quibbling about one call, is it a walk or not. How the hell did Vandy shut Hibbert down? It's a trick question. They didn't, the refs did. How, by not calling the game according to the rules. Was it outcome determinative. Only if you are among those who insist that it was some kind of grave injustice that the walk, was a walk, and that it wasn't called and Vandy was robbed. The refs put Vandy in the game. Period. And, what were those ridiculous ticky tacky fouls they were calling on Green, who was only doing to Vandy what Vandy and everyone else has been doing to Hibbert and him all tournament. Only, Green was guarding a guy 22 feet from the basket; he and Hibbert were getting "guarded" seven feet from the hoop, often with the ball in their hands, and were getting fouled in precisely the same fashion.

I find it incredibly difficult to watch big-time college basketball and the pros for precisely the reasons that I am putting forth. I think that once the refs compromise the rules, as they do all the time in the name of entertainment, that it becomes a crapshoot, and they have the dice. That is not what interests me about the sport.

I watch some very high end basketball and do not find the same tolerance for rule's violations that I see in big time college ball.

BTW, I think that this is another reason why the US cannot compete on the International scene. In addition to the different international rules and court geometry, US players are just used to not following the rules. It hurts. So does not playing soccer, but that is where I started.

Incidently, Hojo can coach big men great, but JTIII is the master. Better than LB!

I like the name greybeard better. Don't you?

feldspar
03-26-2007, 05:01 PM
The rules basically say that if there is serious contact, then somebody fouled somebody, except on blockouts.

No, no they don't. In fact, in several points in the rule book, the committee is quick to point out that even though certain contact may be severe, it is not neccessarily a foul.

Fouls are more about advantage/disadvantage, and the proper application of this philosophy, than about contact.



I find it incredibly difficult to watch big-time college basketball and the pros for precisely the reasons that I am putting forth. I think that once the refs compromise the rules, as they do all the time in the name of entertainment, that it becomes a crapshoot, and they have the dice. That is not what interests me about the sport.

You've given one semi-concrete reason, and that is Jason Williams, who played 5 years ago, and FWIW, I saw the "palming" call called a lot this year.

You've given no completely concrete reasons, only the same type of rationalization that is used when our detractors say that "Duke gets all the calls."



How the hell did Vandy shut Hibbert down? It's a trick question. They didn't, the refs did.

Pffft. Now you're just being silly. Hibbert made stupid, stupid fouls down the stretch of the Vandy game, including fouling a 3-point shooter to pick up his fifth.

You tell me, why is a team's 7-2 center out on the 3-point line defending a 3-point shot that aggressively with 4 fouls? Because the refs made him do it?

throatybeard
03-26-2007, 05:15 PM
Incidently, Hojo can coach big men great

He played a mean third base back in the 1980s, too.

Kfanarmy
03-26-2007, 05:51 PM
I think there is room to criticize the officials for calls and no calls. 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. When Xavier and UT have leads on OSU melted minute by minute with fouls called on every defensive stand and seemingly the same infractions not called on the other end of the court, it is good to question officials competence, execution and/or integrity. Simply equating everything to people saying "Duke gets all the calls." doesn't negate an argument on a specific game or specific call. Officials aren't perfect, and I would submit, some few are purposely not perfect. There will continue to be a lot of unjustified rantings about officials, there will also continue to be a few justified rantings. A more or less equally played game decided in the last minute by "swallowing the whisle" while Making ___ sure the call is right or by making a bad call can, and does, decide the final score in some contests.

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

greybeard
03-26-2007, 06:00 PM
No, no they don't. In fact, in several points in the rule book, the committee is quick to point out that even though certain contact may be severe, it is not neccessarily a foul.

Fouls are more about advantage/disadvantage, and the proper application of this philosophy, than about contact.



You've given one semi-concrete reason, and that is Jason Williams, who played 5 years ago, and FWIW, I saw the "palming" call called a lot this year.

You've given no completely concrete reasons, only the same type of rationalization that is used when our detractors say that "Duke gets all the calls."




Pffft. Now you're just being silly. Hibbert made stupid, stupid fouls down the stretch of the Vandy game, including fouling a 3-point shooter to pick up his fifth.

You tell me, why is a team's 7-2 center out on the 3-point line defending a 3-point shot that aggressively with 4 fouls? Because the refs made him do it?

During the year Jackson was out of coaching, his assistant, the guy behind the triangle, was asked, "what rule changes would you like to see to open up the game." His response, "none, all they have to do is to call the ones on the book, all the time." He went on to say something pretty darn close to what I said about contact. If you think that the contact you see most of the time in the post that does not get called most of the time is not a foul almost all the time, I have to disagree. I take your advantage rule and is directly inapplicable. If you push and shove Hibbert, or divert him away from a catch within the paint, you have saved yourself two points, unless you are Oden, maybe. He will score the ball if he catches it, and he will catch it if you don't push him. Please. This is silly.

Shaq in his prime used to play with finese for three quarters, making most all the little finesey type flip shots or banks he got off, but not all of them. In the last quarters of close games, he would put down his shoulder and barrel over people. The few times the refs called it, LA lost and Phil screamed conspiracy. It was a fould all the time.

You would not have to push and shove so much in the post if they enforced the rules when it comes to the worst play in all of sports, the dunk. First, hanging on the rim, when you put yourself in danger, not because there are people under you, but because you are wildly off balance and fear breaking your neck, is a technical foul. It almost never is called. Most big men shuffle to gather and dunk, and many, many, pull down the rim so they can get the ball "stuffed" into it. Call the shuffles, make the rims stiff like they were created to be, and make touching the rim other than with a passing light high five type move, offensive goal tending. Then call the pushing and shoving and we will see some real pivot play, which by the way you have always seen in the Princeton, which is just one of the reasons I think that Carrill is the best of the best.

Georgetown has switched on all picks, just as Duke has since the beginning of the season. You don't switch, and guys like Law and Lawson, and the many terrific guards in the Big East, and the guards of Va and VT will eat you up. Hibbert was extremely awkward on the switches at the beginning of the year, but no more. Georgetown's defense is terrific and Hibbert did not foul out because of the two plays that you mentioned. Had the refs called the game, he'd have been making like Red, by that point, whether he had a cigar or not.

Fman, you just like to argue too much. You have too strong a sense of the game to be a fan of the status quo. In the current situation, the best that anyone can hope for is that they "call it consistently." Then, coaches and players adjust their decision making based upon how the game is being called. To me, that makes referees' choices way, way too important. Why not call it straight up? The other way, a team that has no business being on the court with another can be. It's a lousy system designed to create photo ops for ESPN et al, who after all pay the freight, and create a circus that even non fans can understand (because there is nothing to understand).

And, then, when the ref makesl some truly ridiculous call that is out of step with everything else that has been going on because something was out in the open on the exterior, I literally change the channel. I can't watch.

I certainly am not going to cry about how the refs called the game based on an isolated play. At least not when my guys win, I'm not. That is within the current rules, right, Fman? Smile, it's all fun, including your ridiculous attempt to convert Green's obvious walk into a righteous play. Later.

greybeard
03-26-2007, 06:13 PM
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?

feldspar
03-26-2007, 06:55 PM
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.

throatybeard
03-26-2007, 07:05 PM
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.

feldspar
03-26-2007, 07:10 PM
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.

Indoor66
03-26-2007, 08:40 PM
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.

greybeard
03-26-2007, 08:52 PM
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!

feldspar
03-26-2007, 08:55 PM
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.

ricks68
03-26-2007, 11:39 PM
What have I started!

ricks

greybeard
03-27-2007, 12:54 AM
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?

Kfanarmy
03-27-2007, 09:50 AM
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?

feldspar
03-27-2007, 10:04 AM
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.

dukeENG2003
03-27-2007, 10:23 AM
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.

devildownunder
03-27-2007, 10:23 AM
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?

feldspar
03-27-2007, 10:40 AM
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.

greybeard
03-27-2007, 01:13 PM
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.

bluedevil
03-27-2007, 01:20 PM
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.

Kfanarmy
03-27-2007, 01:29 PM
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.

feldspar
03-27-2007, 01:39 PM
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.

feldspar
03-27-2007, 01:44 PM
apparently the collective has a sore spot over criticism.

Wholly untrue. If that were so, no one would last a week.

greybeard
03-27-2007, 03:12 PM
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.

mapei
03-27-2007, 03:46 PM
When I overlook the insults going back and forth, I actually am learning a lot from this discussion. :) The analysts seem divided on whether Jeff Green traveled at the end of the Vandy game (I'm pro-Hoya, so I'm siding with Bilas on that one), but he also was seriously hacked on the play, and probably pushed as well. There were at least two no-calls on the play.

On the UNC-Hoya game, I think greybeard's analysis matches my own, except I'll add that Georgetown's rebounding also got much better in the second half. That had a lot to do with the catch-up, because UNC wasn't getting 2d and 3d looks as often on missed shots.

People who cite Georgetown as a "physical" team couldn't be more wrong, IMO, at least in comparison to many other college teams. Their style of play is actually quite the opposite. I think the impression is one that lingers from the old days when the Hoyas really were known for being tough and physical. But that was Big John's team, not JT3's.

Chicago 1995
03-27-2007, 03:51 PM
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.

On the other side of the coin, I'm sure you can appreciate, feldspar, how frustrating it is as a knowledgeable basketball fan, to see poor officiating rewarded.

Guys miss calls -- like the terrible missed shot clock violation and missed goaltend in the Kansas-SIU game -- and officials are apparently never sanctioned.

Guys like Karl Hess are officiating in the Sweet 16 despite Karl strange brand of frontier justice and his ability to interject himself into the outcome of close games over and over and over again.

What complicates the problem is that not only are officials never sanctioned, they are completely insulated from official criticism. Had Tim Floyd really said what he should have said, the NCAA would have fined him back to the stone ages.

Floyd might not have been right -- although Gibson's third, fourth and fifth fouls were dicey -- but it doesn't matter if a coach is right in criticizing or not. The governing body of the sport will squelch dissent.

They're (almost) never publicly sanctioned and all dissent about them is squelched. Heck, even here you just pat us on the head and tell us all that we don't know the rules and we're ignorant fans who shouldn't talk about officiating.

And you wonder why people react so negatively?

To the call in question, you're right about the rule, obviously. At the same time, graybeard has a point too. Why isn't that rule called correctly more often. Nine out of ten times you see guy make a move like Green did, it's whistled for a travel.

That's the real problem with officials and one that we're talking around. It's not that the calls they make are wrong. It how they choose to call what they call and choose not to call what they don't.

I don't think officials consciously effect the outcome of games. I don't think they're crooked. I do think they are human, and they are effected, even at a subconscious level by reputations and expected outcomes and home courts and the like.

If they aren't effected in that way, then the other explanation for the FT differential in the UNC-G'town game, or the inconsistency the way the OSU-UT game was called from one half to another and one end to another, or Karl Hess's abillity to be in a position to make a critical, game changing call as often as he does is much, much more sinister.

feldspar
03-27-2007, 04:19 PM
They're (almost) never publicly sanctioned and all dissent about them is squelched.

You see, that's just patently untrue. I can recall many a time where the officials were publicly sanctioned by the ACC and other leagues for what the league interpreted as a bad call. Remember FSU last year? Sorry, but your above statement is completely untrue.

1/3 of officiating basketball is mechanics. Where you are on the court, where you should be looking, etc. 1/3 is rules knowledge and application. What is a travel, what's not. When does the player get foul shots, when does he not. The last 1/3 is the officials' judgement, as directed by the rules. Was that contact enough to warrant a foul?

We can make a corrollary to coaching basketball. Do you feel that Coach K should criticize his players publicly every time they miss a shot? How about every time they don't box out? Every time they don't hustle?

No, that would undermine his determination to let his players know that he believes in them and that it's okay to make mistakes, as long as they are not egregious and they are not repeated and they are not done on purpose.

Such is the case with the leagues and officiating. The ACC and other leagues recognize that it's pretty much impossible for an official to work a perfect game. Almost never, if ever, happens. So why should we expect the ACC to do what Coach K and most other coaches choose not to do with their players - to publicly point out every flaw and every mistake they make?


Heck, even here you just pat us on the head and tell us all that we don't know the rules and we're ignorant fans who shouldn't talk about officiating.


Again, you're mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't call all basketball fans, or even those who walk the halls of DBR, ignorant.

I called greybeard ignorant. He has admitted as much. He doesn't really want to be bothered with what the rulebook says. Which is fine. But that makes him, by definition, ignorant and unwilling to open up his mind to the possibility that perhaps he doesn't know as much as he thinks he knows.

And I won't apologize for pointing out that most fans are not as knowledgable about the rules of basketball as they think they are. I'm sorry if you take that as me having an air of superiority, but to me it's no different than pointing out that Coach K is more knowledgable about how to coach basketball than any of us casual fans here are, including myself.

I don't mean it to come across as rude or derogatory or such. I apologize if it does. But I guarantee you that were you to pick up a rule book, a case book, and take an officiating course and ref a handful of even rec-league level games, your eyes would be opened to a whole new world of basketball that you never new existed, and you'd be hard pressed to ever again make the knee-jerk reactions that many on here frequently make. That has been my experience, and the experience of every single basketball official that I have talked to about the subject.


Guys like Karl Hess are officiating in the Sweet 16 despite Karl strange brand of frontier justice and his ability to interject himself into the outcome of close games over and over and over again.

Again, I can't really address your issues with Karl Hess unless you give me some concrete examples. I do know that he handled the end-game of the TAMU/Memphis game superbly.

3rdgenDukie
03-27-2007, 04:53 PM
My feeling is that of all the major sports, basketball is the most complex in its actions, as well as being the fastest and most continuous. Therefore the number of possible infractions officials are forced to deal with EVERY SINGLE MINUTE is mind-boggling. Add to that the increased amount of physical contact and speed that has been seen in the last several decades, and the number of subjective decisions officials have to make (based often on things like implied momentum and leverage) is, frankly, too high for three humans to make successfully in any comprehensive way. Trying to account for contact between 10 big, fast, strong players, while also watching for things like palming, travelling, 3 seconds, 5 second calls, etc. just isn't going to happen with anything near 100% accuracy.

Thus, the decisions officials make DO HEAVILY AFFECT the game. Now, I don't think for one second that their are many refs who consciously try to 'slant' calls or games, but given the vast number of very subjective calls every official is forced to make every game, biased fans can easily overlook this. In a very real sense, officials DO decide the outcome of most every close game, though not in any consistently biased way. Thus, games increasingly become crapshoots with the officials taking the role of dice.

IMO, basketball is very close to being completely broken because of this. It is becoming more like figure skating than a true objective duel between teams. The officials aren't, IMO, to blame for this. Americans like their sports outsized and rough and tough. This has led to the rampant use of steroids in Baseball and the almost freakish violent between absurdly proportioned Football players. Unfortunately, hoops suffers the most because its free-flowing nature invites so many possibilities. While I love this jazz-like aspect of the game more than anything, maintaining a semblance of order as the tempo, volume and arrangement become ever faster/higher/more complex looks to be increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

Chicago 1995
03-27-2007, 05:24 PM
You see, that's just patently untrue. I can recall many a time where the officials were publicly sanctioned by the ACC and other leagues for what the league interpreted as a bad call. Remember FSU last year? Sorry, but your above statement is completely untrue.

No, it's not completely untrue. I said "(almost) never publicly sanctioned." I think that allows for situations like the Duke-FSU game last year.

Besides that, I'd like another instance of an ACC basketball crew being publicly sanctioned. I'd even take another example of a BCS conference basketball crew being publicly sanctioned. I've been thinking about this, well, since the FSU crew last year got their hands slapped, and I can't come up with another example.


1/3 of officiating basketball is mechanics. Where you are on the court, where you should be looking, etc. 1/3 is rules knowledge and application. What is a travel, what's not. When does the player get foul shots, when does he not. The last 1/3 is the officials' judgement, as directed by the rules. Was that contact enough to warrant a foul?

That one third is the gray area that is inescapable, but it's also the source of the problem. Why was the contact on UNC's shots in the paint Sunday a foul while similar contact was not a foul on Georgetown's shots in the paint? Why the sudden quick whistles on Taj Gibson? Why was contact going to rim not a foul in the first half the the OSU-Tennessee game, but it was, especially at the OSU end, in the second half?

We all understand officials are human, and we don't expect perfection. What we do expect is consistency, and that's something that's often times sorely lacking from games. Those are just three examples above. Lack of consistency, above all else, is what creates a perception of favortism. Yet, it must be of no concern to the Fred Barakats and Rich Falks of the world, because there is obviously no emphasis on consistency given the way the 12 games last weekend were called.


We can make a corrollary to coaching basketball. Do you feel that Coach K should criticize his players publicly every time they miss a shot? How about every time they don't box out? Every time they don't hustle?

No, that would undermine his determination to let his players know that he believes in them and that it's okay to make mistakes, as long as they are not egregious and they are not repeated and they are not done on purpose.

Such is the case with the leagues and officiating. The ACC and other leagues recognize that it's pretty much impossible for an official to work a perfect game. Almost never, if ever, happens. So why should we expect the ACC to do what Coach K and most other coaches choose not to do with their players - to publicly point out every flaw and every mistake they make?

I don't buy the analogy. First, I'm not asking for public sanction every time an official misses a call. I've conceded here they are human, and at no point have I argued for a requirement of perfection.

Second, I don't think the analogy works because guys like Karl Hess and Ted Valentine and Olandis Poole aren't 18 year old kids playing college basketball in exchange for a scholarship. They're adults, supplementing a living. I'm subject to review and sanction in my job as a lawyer. Why would it be any different for an official? I have to make judgment calls all the time. Should I not be sanctioned if I make a terrible mistake? If I show a pattern of mistakes?

I actually think the lawyer analogy is a pretty fair one. Officials, essentially, are handed the public trust to make sure that a game is played correctly and fairly. They police, prosecute and judge rule violations on a basketball court. Is it unfair to hold officials to a higher standard given what their role is? I don't think so.


Again, you're mischaracterizing what I said. I didn't call all basketball fans, or even those who walk the halls of DBR, ignorant.

I called greybeard ignorant. He has admitted as much. He doesn't really want to be bothered with what the rulebook says. Which is fine. But that makes him, by definition, ignorant and unwilling to open up his mind to the possibility that perhaps he doesn't know as much as he thinks he knows.

And I won't apologize for pointing out that most fans are not as knowledgable about the rules of basketball as they think they are. I'm sorry if you take that as me having an air of superiority, but to me it's no different than pointing out that Coach K is more knowledgable about how to coach basketball than any of us casual fans here are, including myself. ?

You're the Coach K of officials? Wow. We should be honored. ;) I know that's not what you meant. Couldn't resist.

The reason I pointed out your response is that it is very much indicative of the response of officials everywhere when any one of their own is criticized. Like police, officials close rank and usually deflect any criticism by questioning the qualifications of the person asking. It creates the impression that you are more concerned with taking care of your own than anything else, and it fuels the perceptions I'm talking about here, and we've seen bubble up in this thread.


I don't mean it to come across as rude or derogatory or such. I apologize if it does. But I guarantee you that were you to pick up a rule book, a case book, and take an officiating course and ref a handful of even rec-league level games, your eyes would be opened to a whole new world of basketball that you never new existed, and you'd be hard pressed to ever again make the knee-jerk reactions that many on here frequently make. That has been my experience, and the experience of every single basketball official that I have talked to about the subject.

That presumes I haven't.


Again, I can't really address your issues with Karl Hess unless you give me some concrete examples. I do know that he handled the end-game of the TAMU/Memphis game superbly.

Karl got the end of game in TAMU/Memphis right. Bully for him. Thanks to video, I'd expect him to get it right. Idiots on CBS aside, I thought the call Karl had to make there was pretty clear from the video.

That doesn't change the fact that he's officiated a number of dicey games in the ACC. Karl was an official in the first Clemson clock debacle back in 1997, IIRC. I know he was the official (and the whistle happy one) in the ACC tourney Duke title loss against Maryland and at least one other loss at UMD where the foul differential was astounding. By asking for specific examples, you're not missing the forest for the trees, you're missing the trees for the branches. Karl's body of work is the relevant specific example.

feldspar
03-27-2007, 07:25 PM
I'm hungry and tired and cranky, so, I'll be quick.

To sum up, you don't feel that the officials, Karl Hess in particular, are perfect.

Well, we agree.

3rdgenDukie
03-27-2007, 08:16 PM
That one third is the gray area that is inescapable, but it's also the source of the problem.

The source of the problem is THAT the 'gray area' is inescapable. There is simply no way (I can think of, anyway) to diminish it. If anything, as players get taller, faster, stronger, it will increase. Human judgement is based on perception, and perception is simply becoming more difficult.


We all understand officials are human, and we don't expect perfection. What we do expect is consistency, and that's something that's often times sorely lacking from games. Those are just three examples above. Lack of consistency, above all else, is what creates a perception of favortism.

Given the HUNDREDS of potential calls/non-calls that are extremely subjective in nature in EVERY game, 'consistency' is pretty hard to define. There are m(b)illions of potential possibilities for a charge/block based on player movement, size, arm position, viewing angle, speed, elevation, etc. There is no feasible way officials could process all these variables with any 'consistency'. Same, or more so, for screens, box-outs, fighting for post position, double teams, held balls, etc. Virtually every play has potentially dozens of not only subjective, but VERY subjective potential calls that can or can't be made. Frankly, 'consistency' is a red herring in anything but the broadest sense. And yes, this does create a perception of favoritism by biased observers.


Why would it be any different for an official? I have to make judgment calls all the time. Should I not be sanctioned if I make a terrible mistake? If I show a pattern of mistakes?

The reality is that officials, by slow motion replay, make mistakes ALL THE TIME!!! Each official likely blows, by strict definition, probably AT LEAST 20 calls/game. In a close game, each one of these could be deemed a 'terrible' mistake. Thus, you have people making hugely subjective decisions about other people's hugely subjective decisions to determine 'sanctions'. That is one hell of a Pandora's box.

FWIW, I believe the FSU sanction decision was abhorrent. Yes, Alexander should not have been assessed the second T, but that call was no worse than numerous other calls that happen ALL THE TIME, and action was only taken because ESPN started their whole 'Duke gets the calls' campaign. If broader sanctions based on public perception and TV talk shows were truly to happen, the sport would be doomed. Absolutely doomed.

greybeard
03-28-2007, 12:05 AM
Okay, Feldspar you win.

I have some rule book questions though, that I would be interested to know if there is an answer to.

1. If you catch it in the low post, is it okay to take one huge step to the middle, lift your pivot foot, and swoop in and dunk the ball from the middle, or do you have to keep the newly planted foot on the ground before releasing it? what rules would govern?

2. If you catch it in the low post, is it okay to drop step, lift your pivot foot, and lay it in or dunk from the baseline position, or do you have to release before your newly planted foot leaves the ground?

3. If you dribble to the right, stop left right, pump fake, step through with your right foot, do you have to lift off with both feet at the same time, or is it okay to lift your left foot and then shoot? If so, must your right foot also stay on the ground, or may you lift off the ground to shoot? What rules apply?

4. If you are at the foul line, and your left foot is your pivot foot, may you lift your left foot and begin dribbling before your left foot touches the ground. What rules apply?

5. If you catch it on the jump landing left/right. You are then trapped. You try to step through with your right foot and sort of get your shoulders through, but really have not cleared the trap. May you lift your left foot, continue through the trap, and pass the ball, either elevating or not, before your left foot hits the ground? What rules apply?

I might be "ignorant," so, while I think I know the answers to all these questions, I haven't a clue as to what rules apply and am not sure, if you are correct about the Green move, that what I think I know is correct. Be careful here, Feldspar, while I care not one wit for logic, there are those here who do.

Boyz, why do I feel that none of these questions will be answered and I will be called further names?

feldspar
03-28-2007, 10:48 AM
NCAA Rule 4, Section 66. Traveling

Art. 1. Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both
feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this rule.

Art. 2. A player who catches the ball with both feet on the playing court may pivot, using either foot. When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot.

Art. 3. A player who catches the ball while moving or dribbling may stop
and establish a pivot foot as follows:

a. When both feet are off the playing court and the player lands:

1. Simultaneously on both feet, either may be the pivot foot;
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch shall be
the pivot foot;
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot and simultaneously
land on both; neither foot can be the pivot foot.
b. When one foot is on the playing court:

1. That foot shall be the pivot foot when the other foot touches in a
step;
2. The player may jump off that foot and simultaneously land on
both; neither foot can then be the pivot foot.

Art. 4. After coming to a stop and establishing the pivot foot:

a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to the playing court,
before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal;
b. The pivot foot shall not be lifted before the ball is released to start a
dribble.

Art. 5. After coming to a stop when neither foot can be the pivot foot:

a. One or both feet may be lifted, but may not be returned to the playing
court, before the ball is released on a pass or try for goal;
b. Neither foot shall be lifted, before the ball is released, to start a
dribble.

dukeENG2003
03-28-2007, 11:21 AM
1/3 of officiating basketball is mechanics. Where you are on the court, where you should be looking, etc. 1/3 is rules knowledge and application. What is a travel, what's not. When does the player get foul shots, when does he not. The last 1/3 is the officials' judgement, as directed by the rules. Was that contact enough to warrant a foul?

Given that this is the case, I would be very interested to know what your position and/or the position of other officials is on the idea of a "make-up call". The way I see it, there are two positions:

1. Officials always try to do the best that they can, and make their best judgement, and don't let past calls affect their judgement

2. Officials recognize that some some subjective calls or more suspect than others, and might try and even things out by giving a borderline subjective call back to the other team when they recognize this has occured.

I think the problem people have expressed with the officiating has to do with consistency of these subjective calls. Its a lose lose situation, as either position will leave you with angry fans (either they will feel that all the "close calls" went against them, or if conscious adjustment is made, there will be specific calls that are easy to pinpoint and call into question as being more questionable than others).

Just curious whether the "make up call" is something that comes into play ever, or if the possibility of an UNINTENTIONAL bias (i.e. more of the subjective calls going one teams way than the other) exists. I know as a fan I tend to be more frustrated when I see an overall bias to the officiating (intentional or not, like what I saw in the OSU Tennessee game), and tend to forgive the occasional REALLY suspect call if it immediately follows a bad call on the other end.

greybeard
03-28-2007, 12:56 PM
NCAA Rule 4, Traveling.

From what I am reading, Article 4a would seem to make my hypotheticals 1, 2, 3, & 5, all permissible. However, I am virtually certain that 3 and 5 are walks, and am reasonably certain that 1 and 2 are as well. I really can't tell how the other articles come into play, if at all.

Article 4b directly addresses my hypothetical 4 and answers it the way I have always understood the rules require.

Thanks Feldspar, and, at least for now, peace. If any body wants to beat a dead horse even further, especially regarding 3 and 5, I'm all ears. And, no, I will not argue, just listen.

ikiru36
03-28-2007, 06:31 PM
Feldspar and Greybeard,

All the earlier invective aside, just wanted to say that I appreciated Greybeard's offering of the 5 situations and Feldspar's citing of the relevant rules. Thank you.

Greybeard, when I read (and tried to think carefully about) your post, prior to reading Feldspar's, I thought that 1, 2, 3, and 5 were legal and 4 was illegal (and I am not an official, just a longtime recreational player and watcher).

While I think that the rules do show me to have "guessed" correctly, I agree with you that the 4 legal moves did seem, at first, like they might be travelling. Perhaps some of the issue is that when players exercise the moves you described they sometimes slide the pivot foot somewhat before lifting it, which would make some moves illegal which are otherwise legal if they only truly 'pivoted' at the same point on the court.

One question. Feldspar is citing the NCAA rulebook it seems. Is this particular travelling rule the same as that for, say, H.S., FIBA or the NBA? While many of us are aware of certain rules differences (i.e. goaltending, inbounding player movement, 3 seconds lane size/shape, when and by whom timeouts may be called, substitution rules...etc.), are, at least, the rules for dribbling, palming, and travelling standardized?

Actually, since writing this I found this very interesting webpage breaking down rules differences between NCAA, NBA and FIBA rules. Check it out. (http://members.shaw.ca/jazzace/ace/hoop/rulediff.html)

throatybeard
03-28-2007, 09:34 PM
One question. Feldspar is citing the NCAA rulebook it seems. Is this particular travelling rule the same as that for, say...the NBA?

Oh that one's easy. There is no such rule as traveling in the NBA. :D

feldspar
03-29-2007, 11:37 AM
FWIW, from what I've heard, Karl Hess is getting the nod to officiate in the championship game on Monday.

Take that as you will.

Chicago 1995
03-29-2007, 12:23 PM
FWIW, from what I've heard, Karl Hess is getting the nod to officiate in the championship game on Monday.

Take that as you will.

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.

greybeard
03-29-2007, 12:51 PM
The invectives aside, it has been a learning experience for me too. I have to say, that I'm going to try to find out more about 3 and 5. In the men's game, it is my understanding that, on the stepthrough move, you must elevate off of both feet at the same time. If you lift your pivot foot and then jump, it is a walk. On the otherhand, I see the move performed by women on TV with lifting the pivot foot and it is not called. Perhaps there is something in the way that the stop itself is made (I really am too old for this; played once this year--did pretty well, btw--and before that who can remember), but it is gnawing at me now. Number 5 also, I think would be called a walk everytime, not that I ever actually see anybody do it.

But, the one thing I did learn is why another move I thought for sure is a walk isn't. The stop on one foot, jump land on two, and then elevate and shoot. The rules Feldspar provided directly answer that that is not a walk. To bad I didn't get it earlier, I'd have saved myself some money. Thanks, Feldie, for not baiting me with a bet! It's all good, even the invectives!

I am an outlander on this wage page (a non dukie), and found my way here fortuitously. It is a terrific place to play. Thanks boyz.

cato
03-29-2007, 12:54 PM
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.

Yeah, because that is absolutely the rational conclusion.

Chicago 1995
03-29-2007, 01:14 PM
Yeah, because that is absolutely the rational conclusion.

And the other conclusion -- that Karl Hess is one of the three best officials in college basketball -- is any more rational?

feldspar
03-29-2007, 01:23 PM
And the other conclusion -- that Karl Hess is one of the three best officials in college basketball -- is any more rational?

Just out of curiousity, I'm wondering what makes you more qualified to judge the abilities of college officials better than the NCAA Rules and Officiating Committee?

cato
03-29-2007, 01:29 PM
And the other conclusion -- that Karl Hess is one of the three best officials in college basketball -- is any more rational?

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?

Chicago 1995
03-29-2007, 03:07 PM
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. :D

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
03-29-2007, 03:17 PM
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
03-29-2007, 04:34 PM
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
03-29-2007, 04:38 PM
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. :rolleyes: 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
03-29-2007, 04:42 PM
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
03-29-2007, 04:49 PM
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
03-29-2007, 04:56 PM
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
03-29-2007, 05:23 PM
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
03-30-2007, 04:54 PM
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.