PDA

View Full Version : How would you have officiated Duke/VaTech differently?



feldspar
01-25-2008, 09:09 AM
I'm seeing an overwhelming amount of comments on the "awful," "inconsistent" and "horrible" nature of the officiating last night, so I'd invite those who had qualms with the officiating crew to step up and list, in detail, what you would have done differently had you laced up the sneaks and put on the stripes last night.

I'm not talking about general stuff ("I would have called it more consistent" or "I would have tightened things up"), I'm talking about specifics. What calls would you have or have not made.

I'll start us off. I would have called the goaltending in the second half that Len Elmore said didn't even have a chance of hitting the rim.

TillyGalore
01-25-2008, 09:16 AM
I think the T on DeMarcus, which some have complained was too quick, was the right move. Yes, Washington deserved the jawing, and a little more, but things were getting intense at that point of the game and the refs HAD to bring things under control or there could have been bigger issues.

Sorry Feldspar, I know this isn't what you were looking for, but just had to add my $.02.

feldspar
01-25-2008, 09:17 AM
Sorry Feldspar, I know this isn't what you were looking for, but just had to add my $.02.

Hey I'm not complaining! I'll take positive comments, too. :D

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 09:24 AM
Hi,

I think that right out of the gate there was a lot of physical play that needed to be shutdown. By not calling more fouls in the first 5 minutes, the zebras created an environment for bad blood to grow. Trying to regain control at the end by calling T's and more fouls would not have been my preferred approach.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

CDu
01-25-2008, 09:28 AM
Honestly, aside from Washington, there was very little that was out of control in this game. And most of what was out of control was Washington trying to draw cheap fouls and not getting the call. Aside from the undercut,

There are two things that I might have done differently:

1. Make more of a point to tell Washington that his theatrics were unacceptable. Specifically, in the first half, Washington tried to draw a foul on Henderson after Washington tried to sneak into Duke's huddle. Henderson raised his arm to block Washington's path, and Washington flailed. The official saw the whole thing, but instead of giving him a warning, he simply laughed and joked with Washington about the play.
2. In the second half, when Washington was flailing on every play, I'd have definitely stopped play at some point and warned both benches and the player. I think they did a good thing calling the intentional foul as an attempt to curb some of Washington's antics, but it wasn't enough.

Other than those two things, there really wasn't much. A lot of fouls were called, and called early in each half. And aside from the flopping theatrics and tripping Singler, there was nothing Washington did that was over the top before the undercut or the hard foul. And I don't think the undercut was clearly intentional (at least not clearly enough) to warrant a call.

CDu
01-25-2008, 09:28 AM
Hi,

I think that right out of the gate there was a lot of physical play that needed to be shutdown. By not calling more fouls in the first 5 minutes, the zebras created an environment for bad blood to grow. Trying to regain control at the end by calling T's and more fouls would not have been my preferred approach.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

The refs called a TON of fouls in the first five minutes. Both teams were in the bonus before the 10 minute mark of the first half.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-25-2008, 09:31 AM
Agree with Jeffrey. The officials made what seems to be a conscious decision to "let them play" early on. The game quickly got out of hand and so they tried to regain control with a lot of late ticky-tack calls and some VERY quick T's. This (of course) frustrated the players and fans.

Instead, since we know VTech is a "physical" team the officials should have set an early tone. Call some grabbing, shoving, etc. early. I recognize that a lot of fouls were called early, but they all went for egregious contact AFTER 3-4 close calls were not blown. A quick T on Washington wouldn't have hurt (might even have forced him to be a little more under control throughout) or a warning as others have suggested. I think the entire game would have been cleaner, safer, and less frustrating for everyone involved.

feldspar
01-25-2008, 09:37 AM
Agree with Jeffrey. The officials made what seems to be a conscious decision to "let them play" early on.


You are wrong.

There was a foul called in the first 5 seconds of the game. The first 5 seconds!!

There were 9 fouls in the first five minutes. That's almost two a minute.

I don't know how much basketball you watch, but that's a lot of fouls.

dukeENG2003
01-25-2008, 09:44 AM
I would have warned Washington on the undercut move for sure, possibly given him a flagrant there. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that other than intent to injure. He was in better rebounding position had he stayed where he was.

I would have then given him a flagrant on the block/foul that happened later (not due to intent, but due to excessive contact).

I would have warned him explicitly about the flopping (that would have done him a favor, perhaps he would have actually played some defense instead).

I would have asked Greenberg to get his players whining under control, they complained after EVERY call, even obvious ones.

I would have called a charge when Paulus got LEVELED (yes, the player didn't have the ball at the time, but that doesn't matter by rule).

They didn't do a terrible job, they just gave Washington too long of a leash and put up with too much complaining.

feldspar
01-25-2008, 09:49 AM
I would have warned Washington on the undercut move for sure, possibly given him a flagrant there. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that other than intent to injure. He was in better rebounding position had he stayed where he was.

I would have then given him a flagrant on the block/foul that happened later (not due to intent, but due to excessive contact).

I would have warned him explicitly about the flopping (that would have done him a favor, perhaps he would have actually played some defense instead).

I would have asked Greenberg to get his players whining under control, they complained after EVERY call, even obvious ones.

I would have called a charge when Paulus got LEVELED (yes, the player didn't have the ball at the time, but that doesn't matter by rule).

They didn't do a terrible job, they just gave Washington too long of a leash and put up with too much complaining.

I will point out that none of us has any idea what was said to whom by the officials during the course of the game, so much of what you said could have actually occurred. The officials talk to the players on a regular basis about this kind of stuff.

dukeENG2003
01-25-2008, 09:53 AM
very true, although if he was indeed warned as I had suggested, it was clear it had little effect, so they should have done it MORE (or escalated it to the level of a T even if necessary).

About the flopping, perhaps they did, b/c they really didn't give him many calls near the end (and we DID get a charge call, which I rarely see in a blowout scenario), and the foul to get him out of the game was BS (but a good idea, it just wasn't a foul).

Karl Beem
01-25-2008, 10:19 AM
I'd have T'd up Washington twice in the first minute.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-25-2008, 10:22 AM
Would you say that the game was called closely? "A lot of fouls" is not the same as "called closely." I'm arguing that a concerted effort to call handchecks, bumps, pushoffs, etc in the first five minutes would have sent a message that the game was going to be clean. Players would have adjusted or (in Washington's case) fouled out in the first 5 minutes.

The officials weren't the story of this game, and I agree that too much time is being spent discussing them. Still, JCD the officials all you want, but this was a rough and ragged game and allowing guys like Washington to act as he did contributed to that.

darthur
01-25-2008, 10:24 AM
I would have called a charge when Paulus got LEVELED (yes, the player didn't have the ball at the time, but that doesn't matter by rule).

Oh yeah - I forgot about that play. That call was absolute garbage. Charges don't get much more obvious than that.

CDu
01-25-2008, 10:29 AM
Would you say that the game was called closely? "A lot of fouls" is not the same as "called closely." I'm arguing that a concerted effort to call handchecks, bumps, pushoffs, etc in the first five minutes would have sent a message that the game was going to be clean. Players would have adjusted or (in Washington's case) fouled out in the first 5 minutes.

The officials weren't the story of this game, and I agree that too much time is being spent discussing them. Still, JCD the officials all you want, but this was a rough and ragged game and allowing guys like Washington to act as he did contributed to that.

And I'd say that they DID make an effort to call these things, even early in the game, which was evidenced by the high number of fouls called.

Cavlaw
01-25-2008, 10:34 AM
How about VT's "steal" that involved laying on the floor with the ball out of bounds near the end of the first half?

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 10:34 AM
The refs called a TON of fouls in the first five minutes. Both teams were in the bonus before the 10 minute mark of the first half.

Hi,

IMO, it was a very physical game that was not strongly controlled by the zebras in the the opening minutes. IMO, if the zebra had set the tone in the early minutes that they would not tolerate an overly physical game, then the rest of the game would not have played out the way it did. Seldom do good things occur when you allow the kids to play that physically.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jumbo
01-25-2008, 10:35 AM
Hi,

I think that right out of the gate there was a lot of physical play that needed to be shutdown. By not calling more fouls in the first 5 minutes, the zebras created an environment for bad blood to grow. Trying to regain control at the end by calling T's and more fouls would not have been my preferred approach.

Best regards,
Jeffrey


I believe both teams were in the one-and-one about eight minutes into the first half, and almost defintiely by the midpoint of the first half. They called a ton of fouls early.

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 10:39 AM
And I'd say that they DID make an effort to call these things, even early in the game, which was evidenced by the high number of fouls called.

Hi,

IMO, the foul count was more a reflection of how physical the game was than how tightly the zebras were calling it. Some fouls cannot be ignored even if you want to.

CDu, on a scale of 1 to 10, how physical do you think the game was?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 10:40 AM
I believe both teams were in the one-and-one about eight minutes into the first half, and almost defintiely by the midpoint of the first half. They called a ton of fouls early.

Hi,

IMO, the foul count was more a reflection of how physical the game was than how tightly the zebras were calling it. Some fouls cannot be ignored even if you want to.

Jumbo, on a scale of 1 to 10, how physical do you think the game was?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jumbo
01-25-2008, 10:42 AM
Hi,

IMO, the foul count was more a reflection of how physical the game was than how tightly the zebras were calling it. Some fouls cannot be ignored even if you want to.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

That makes very little sense. They called a huge number of fouls. What else could they have done? Fouled everyone out in the first five minutes? Started throwing everyone out of the game like Billy Crystal in "Forget Paris?"

devildeac
01-25-2008, 10:42 AM
I believe both teams were in the one-and-one about eight minutes into the first half, and almost defintiely by the midpoint of the first half. They called a ton of fouls early.

I thought vt was in the 1 and 1 at about the 14 minute mark in the 1st half and we did not get to the 1 and 1 until about the 8 minute mark. Trusting memory, Bob Harris' comments and the chat room here.

SoCalDukeFan
01-25-2008, 10:42 AM
After watching the Duke/Va Tech game I watched UCLA play Oregon. It was almost like watching two different sports. There was much less contact in the UCLA game and it was called much closer.

I did not tape the Duke game and don't have the time to go back and analyze every call. The one specific is that Washington should have been t'ed up when he tried to go into the Duke huddle. He was trying to provoke something and should have been set down.

I think if you had Pac 10 refs at the Duke game then both teams would have either changed their style of play or we have seen the walk ons after the scholarship players had fouled out.


While I loved seeing Duke win, I more enjoyed the style of the UCLA/Oregon game.

SoCal

Johnny B
01-25-2008, 10:44 AM
It was a difficult game to officiate. However, it did seem as though it was only a spark away from a punch up at times. Calling fouls is not the only way to control things. I think the refs could have spoken more to certain players (washington, for one) to encourage better control.

Of course, the coaches should also be doing that and I don't know what Coach Greenberg said to his players.

devildeac
01-25-2008, 10:47 AM
1. A T for washington when he took a swing at Kyle in the 1st half after tripping him.
2. A flagrant foul for undercutting Markie on the lay-up/dunk.
3. A flagrant foul on one of the vt players(I thought it was washington) for the foul with excessive force on Markie(maybe the same play as above). This looked a lot like the foul GH committed on TH when he broke his nose last year and was ridiculously called fighting(hmm, same karl hess character...).

darthur
01-25-2008, 10:50 AM
This looked a lot like the foul GH committed on TH when he broke his nose last year and was ridiculously called fighting(hmm, same karl hess character...).

But the end result was very different. And stupidly enough, that's what really matters in officiating these things. GH did injure TH, and got called for fighting. Washington did not injure Nelson, so nothing was made of it. If Nelson had been hurt, I guarantee Washington would have been suspended.

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 10:53 AM
What else could they have done? Fouled everyone out in the first five minutes? Started throwing everyone out of the game like Billy Crystal in "Forget Paris?"

Hi,

Stop play. Bring both coaches to mid-court and tell them that you are not going to tolerate a highly physical game and the coaches need to inform/instruct their players accordingly. Then call it the way you said to the coaches you would and if the coaches are stupid enough to let their kids foul out then it's their problem not your's. I have no doubt, K would have changed the level of Duke's physical play upon that warning. Do you doubt it?

Jumbo, I think that the zebras control the tone of a game much more than you appear to believe.

BTW, what is your answer to my 1 to 10 question about the level of physical play?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jumbo
01-25-2008, 10:56 AM
Hi,

Stop play. Bring both coaches to mid-court and tell them that you are not going to tolerate a highly physical game and the coaches need to inform/instruct their players accordingly. Then call it the way you said to the coaches you would and if the coaches are stupid enough to let their kids foul out then it's their problem not your's. I have no doubt, K would have changed the level of Duke's physical play upon that warning. Do you doubt it?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Well, I don't think there were a lot of fouls that weren't called, so I don't think that message was necessary. The fact that both teams were in the bonus so quickly was enough of a message. Neither team adjusted, and if it were a close game, we would have seen a ton of guys foul out.

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 11:00 AM
Well, I don't think there were a lot of fouls that weren't called, so I don't think that message was necessary. The fact that both teams were in the bonus so quickly was enough of a message. Neither team adjusted, and if it were a close game, we would have seen a ton of guys foul out.

Hi,

Please excuse the redundancy but I'd really like an answer:

Jumbo, on a scale of 1 to 10, how physical do you think the game was?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jumbo
01-25-2008, 11:03 AM
Hi,

Please excuse the redundancy but I'd really like an answer:

Jumbo, on a scale of 1 to 10, how physical do you think the game was?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

I don't know. Probably an 8 or a 9. My point is that 49 fouls were called, which is a huge number. I don't think the refs needed to call more fouls. It was up to the teams to back off, and neither was willing to do so.

mehmattski
01-25-2008, 11:04 AM
I thought vt was in the 1 and 1 at about the 14 minute mark in the 1st half and we did not get to the 1 and 1 until about the 8 minute mark. Trusting memory, Bob Harris' comments and the chat room here.

You can also look at it from the perspective of each possession:

Duke's 1st Possession: Henderson turns it over
VT's 1st Possession: FOUL on Henderson, missed jumper by Washington
Duke: FOUL by Thompson on Thomas' shot
VT: Delaney Turnover
Duke: Paulus Layup
VT: Thompson Layup
Duke: Hudson FOUL , Delaney FOUL, Paulus' layup blocked by Washington
VT: Delaney Turnover
Duke: Delaney FOUL , Singler Missed 3pt, Rebound VT
VT: Vassalo 3pt good, FOUL on Nelson
Duke: Henderson jumper good
VT: Hudson missed 3pt, rebound Henderson
Duke: Henderson turnover
VT: Singler FOUL on Washington shot
Duke: Washington block on Singler's layup, out of bounds... Nelson jumper good
VT: McClure FOUL, Thompson turnover
Duke: McClure Layup
VT: Vassallo Missed 3pt, OR, Singler blocked Thompson's layup, OR, McClure FOUL.

That's the first five minutes of the game. Between the two teams, there were 18 possessions, and there were 9 fouls called, or one every other possession. That, as feldspar has been saying, is a lot of fouls. I don't have video to go back and look at each of those fouls to determine how "close" the game was called... but I don't know what else the refs could have done.

CDu
01-25-2008, 11:06 AM
Well, I don't think there were a lot of fouls that weren't called, so I don't think that message was necessary. The fact that both teams were in the bonus so quickly was enough of a message. Neither team adjusted, and if it were a close game, we would have seen a ton of guys foul out.

I agree. I think the officials did what they could. They called a lot of fouls. The teams didn't adjust, and so they continued to call a lot of fouls.

Moreover, I don't think the game was overly physical - at least any moreso than many college basketball games these days. We've played lots of games like that. Honestly, if you take Washington's antics and the incident with Nelson away, I doubt anyone is talking about the officiating. Nothing else really stood out.

The thing about Washington's antics is that, until the incident with Nelson (which is very borderline), they were mostly just laughable/annoying and not overtly problematic. The officials weren't calling his flops, and that was about the extent of it. The no-call on the undercut can be easily justified by the fact that it happened in the flow of the action (though after the whistle) and could be deemed an accident. And I don't think that play was a result of overly physical play being let go earlier - I think that's more a case of Washington just being a jerk.

captmojo
01-25-2008, 11:08 AM
1. A T for washington when he took a swing at Kyle in the 1st half after tripping him.


Not just a "T", but I feel ejection was warranted at this point. It was a definite swing at Kyle, and if the appropriate action is taken at this point, the later stuff would not have occurred.

It's sad to see Washington play this way. His talent should rise above resorting to this type of behavior, especially when you consider his past behavior on court while seeing royal blue.

Jeffrey
01-25-2008, 11:09 AM
I don't know. Probably an 8 or a 9. My point is that 49 fouls were called, which is a huge number. I don't think the refs needed to call more fouls. It was up to the teams to back off, and neither was willing to do so.

Hi,

IMO, letting them play at an 8 or 9 physical level is asking for trouble. I think that at least Duke would have backed off if the zebras had stop played, brought both coaches to mid-court and told them that you are not going to tolerate a highly physical game and the coaches need to inform/instruct their players accordingly. Then call it the way you said to the coaches you would and if the coaches are stupid enough to let their kids foul out then it's their problem not your's.

Jumbo, I think that the zebras control the tone of a game much more than you appear to believe. I do not believe that an 8 to 9 physical level/tone is in the best interest of college hoops. If somebody had been hurt in this game, then more posters would probably share my belief.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

Jumbo
01-25-2008, 11:18 AM
Hi,

IMO, letting them play at an 8 or 9 physical level is asking for trouble. I think that at least Duke would have backed off if the zebras had stop played, brought both coaches to mid-court and told them that you are not going to tolerate a highly physical game and the coaches need to inform/instruct their players accordingly. Then call it the way you said to the coaches you would and if the coaches are stupid enough to let their kids foul out then it's their problem not your's.

Jumbo, I think that the zebras control the tone of a game much more than you appear to believe. I do not believe that an 8 to 9 physical level/tone is in the best interest of college hoops.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

I don't how I can be any clearer on this issue -- the refs didn't "let them play." In fact, they stopped play 49 times with fouls. That's more than one per minute. The refs aren't there to hold meetings at midcourt. They are there to officiate based on the rules. They called an absurd number of fouls because both teams were overly physical. Both teams should have adjusted. As I said, if this were a close game, both teams would have felt the consequences of their actions because they would have been playing walk-ons.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-25-2008, 11:26 AM
Quote:
"As I said, if this were a close game, both teams would have felt the consequences of their actions because they would have been playing walk-ons."


Probably some credit due as well to the Duke slow-down game that minimized possessions and "cooled off" a lot of the players. A great decision by K that was well-executed by the players.

I think we've got two perspectives on the officiating that just aren't going to reach agreement. A lot of fouls were called, but the game was still an ugly slugfest. Washington was at the center of a lot (most of?) the ugliness. Whether or not calling the game closer (not just "more fouls" but an early message that even touch fouls would be whistled regularly) or some form of reprimand (T, warning with teeth, talk to coaches, etc) would have calmed things down is pure speculation. Some think yes, some no. Not sure anyone is going to convince anyone else that their speculation is more correct.

feldspar
01-25-2008, 11:32 AM
or some form of reprimand (T, warning with teeth, talk to coaches, etc) would have calmed things down is pure speculation.

The problem here, though, is that you can't call a technical foul for play that's simply "aggressive." You just can't. To expect the officials to do so would be ridiculous, yet that's what a lot of people are asking for.

wilko
01-25-2008, 11:35 AM
with a straight face. Im a Duke fan!
I have no interest whatsoever in any pretense whatsoever at being fair.

You want fair.. go play chess or checkers or hoops or whatever with your neighbor.

Im watching to see Duke crush people.

I'll watch other games where I dont have an emotional investment and look to be entertained.


If I were a ref NO opponent would have any chance much less VaTech..
At least Im honest about it.

----

Altho... on a more serious note...
Can some erudite person out there explain to me the vague concept of "no advantage"

Example... an ungarded person brings the ball upcourt. He may palm or carry.. no call because of "no advantage" when he is not being guarded.. I dont get it.

A rule is a rule. Call it.

I argue NOT making that call gives a distinct advantage. And rewards a lack of executing proper fundamentals. Whats next, are we going to start ignoring the out of bounds line?

feldspar
01-25-2008, 11:39 AM
----

Altho... on a more serious note...
Can some erudite person out there explain to me the vague concept of "no advantage"

Example... an ungarded person brings the ball upcourt. He may palm or carry.. no call because of "no advantage" when he is not being guarded.. I dont get it.

A rule is a rule. Call it.

I argue NOT making that call gives a distinct advantage. And rewards a lack of executing fundamentals.

As a general rule, advantage/disadvantage applies to fouls, not violations.

Ima Facultiwyfe
01-25-2008, 11:42 AM
In the final minutes of the game, following Nelson's departure, Len Elmore said he wouldn't be surprised to see Washington called for a foul at the first opportunity in order to get him out of the game as well. When it happened the first time down the court, he said "There it is." I wonder whether or not both coaches were told that that was going to be the case during the long pause for conversations between them and the zebras. They sure didn't look surprised.

I don't care how many calls were made in the first few minutes. There could have been more. Until jerks start fouling out in the first half, this isn't going to get better.

Personally, if I had heard Elmore say what a sterling individual Washington is one more time I would have screamed. Jerks lost their houses in Katrina just the same as good folks! That doesn't automatically make him and his mother saints.

Teams and players reflect the persona of their coaches I'm told. Since that's the case, the ACC or NCAA or somebody should hold coaches responsible for putting mean people who share their attitudes out on the court. Complaints, hearings and sanctions should be available. And coaches should pay the piper.

I ain't blessin' no hearts today!:mad:
Love, Ima

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-25-2008, 11:52 AM
Quote:
"The problem here, though, is that you can't call a technical foul for play that's simply "aggressive." You just can't. To expect the officials to do so would be ridiculous, yet that's what a lot of people are asking for."

But so much of T's is subjective. What's "taunting?" Or "combative?" What is/is not "showing up an official?" We all saw Dan Ewing get a long string of T's for essentially innocuous behavior in '05, despite four seasons spent earning a sterling reputation. Given Washington's own history (Melch's face, et al) and the systematic way he continuously tripped, undercut, shoved, etc well after the play was over, IMO the officials would have been completely justified in finding that he was "taunting" "combative" etc. This lack of "benefit of the doubt" as to Washington's intentions makes perfect sense given his behavior and, IMO, would have either cooled him down or removed him from the game. In either case, we'd have seen a better-played and safer contest.

feldspar
01-25-2008, 11:55 AM
Quote:
"The problem here, though, is that you can't call a technical foul for play that's simply "aggressive." You just can't. To expect the officials to do so would be ridiculous, yet that's what a lot of people are asking for."

But so much of T's is subjective. What's "taunting?" Or "combative?" What is/is not "showing up an official?" We all saw Dan Ewing get a long string of T's for essentially innocuous behavior in '05, despite four seasons spent earning a sterling reputation. Given Washington's own history (Melch's face, et al) and the systematic way he continuously tripped, undercut, shoved, etc well after the play was over, IMO the officials would have been completely justified in finding that he was "taunting" "combative" etc. This lack of "benefit of the doubt" as to Washington's intentions makes perfect sense given his behavior and, IMO, would have either cooled him down or removed him from the game. In either case, we'd have seen a better-played and safer contest.

What is taunting about sticking your butt out on a rebound?

The game was pretty much as safe as it could have been, to tell you the honest truth. And, as I said before, not enough credit on this board has been given to the officials for keeping it that way.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
01-25-2008, 11:59 AM
I think we're going to need to agree to disagree on this one.

As others have said, since we did avoid injury (and Nelson was VERY lucky for that fact) I'm actually selfishly happy Washington was left in the game. We was revealed as the jerk he is, and his antics essentially short-circuited any chance VTech had to come back. Guys like Rodman, Bowen, etc are dirty/cheap and most of all SMART. Washington is just an athletic doofus that killed his team.

_Gary
01-25-2008, 12:03 PM
Yes, there were a heck of a lot of fouls called. And the problem is, there could have been many more. That's how ridiculously physical the game was. But the physical aspect of the game can be partially separated from the "chippy" aspect of the game. You can have physical games without having chippy ones. In my opinion, a part of the physical play came because the refs did not control the chippy part - early on! They absolutely could have done something to try (whether successful or not, they could have at least tried) and clean this game up. And it needed to happen in the first half, not the second.

Like some others, I don't have a tape of the game so I can't give specifics. If that's held against me, so be it. But there were more than enough situations that could have warranted the officials calling the coaches to mid-court and telling them to calm their teams down and stop the chippy play. Don't tell me they couldn't have done that. We all know they could have - and would have been justified to do so. Then, they could have called some more technicals if the first measure didn't clean things up. It's not so much about the number of personal fouls. It's about the chippy play that could have resulted in technicals. Had 3 or 4 technicals been called in the first half it would have eliminated some of the high emotion that led to much of the physical play to begin with.

And yeah, if a guy or two gets tossed in the first half, I guarantee you it calms down everything for the second half. No one wants to see it come to that, but you have to stop the chippy play first, then I believe the overly physical play is brought into check.

Just my two cents.

Gary

oso diablo
01-25-2008, 12:16 PM
i would have stopped play at the last TV timeout, and awarded Washington a Daytime Emmy award, and politely asked him to bask in the glory and immediately make his way to the after-party.

dukeENG2003
01-25-2008, 12:32 PM
What is taunting about sticking your butt out on a rebound?

The game was pretty much as safe as it could have been, to tell you the honest truth. And, as I said before, not enough credit on this board has been given to the officials for keeping it that way.

Not taunting, but he wasn't making a play on the ball, caused excessive contact, potential injury and arguably had intent to harm, which as far as I know the rules, warrants a flagrant. You and I both know he wasn't trying to get the rebound. Good rebounding position on a layup like that is always on the opposite side of the rim of the shooter. He already HAD good rebounding position where he was (had Lance Thomas, I believe, behind him), before he decided he would try and undercut Nelson.

I agree the officials did an OK job, I don't think they did a GOOD job. There was a very clear, and easy way to clean the game up more than it was, and that would have been to get Washington out of the game (which they easily could have justified consider he took a swing at Singler, or when he commited what should have been his second flagrant on the undercut move, or maybe his THIRD flagrant on the attempted block where Nelson got his T). He was the source of 95% of chippiness on the floor. Even Len Elmore saw that.

Sure, they called a lot of fouls, but changing the severity of the foul they called to match the level of contact would have cleaned things up considerably, especially considering the game was long decided at the time of those two other potential flagrants I'm arguing for.

CDu
01-25-2008, 12:42 PM
Not taunting, but he wasn't making a play on the ball, caused excessive contact, potential injury and arguably had intent to harm, which as far as I know the rules, warrants a flagrant. You and I both know he wasn't trying to get the rebound. Good rebounding position on a layup like that is always on the opposite side of the rim of the shooter. He already HAD good rebounding position where he was (had Lance Thomas, I believe, behind him), before he decided he would try and undercut Nelson.

I agree the officials did an OK job, I don't think they did a GOOD job. There was a very clear, and easy way to clean the game up more than it was, and that would have been to get Washington out of the game (which they easily could have justified consider he took a swing at Singler, or when he commited what should have been his second flagrant on the undercut move, or maybe his THIRD flagrant on the attempted block where Nelson got his T). He was the source of 95% of chippiness on the floor. Even Len Elmore saw that.

Sure, they called a lot of fouls, but changing the severity of the foul they called to match the level of contact would have cleaned things up considerably, especially considering the game was long decided at the time of those two other potential flagrants I'm arguing for.

Honestly, outside of the three incidents you've described, I don't think the game was wildly more physical than many ACC games. It was physical, but the physicality was within reason. I think the particular incidents you refer to (the Singler thing, the undercut, and the hard foul resulting in Nelson's T) stand out and have skewed people's perceptions.

Washington was flopping throughout, and there was intensity and some chippiness, but the play was just your standard aggressive play. Can you name any particular plays that were uncharacterisitically physical besides those moments?

I believe that those three events were not so much a function of the physical play so much as being a physical of Washington being a chippy/dirty player. Thus, I'm not sure that the officiating had much to do with it.

_Gary
01-25-2008, 12:48 PM
Honestly, outside of the three incidents you've described, I don't think the game was wildly more physical than many ACC games. It was physical, but the physicality was within reason. I think the particular incidents you refer to (the Singler thing, the undercut, and the hard foul resulting in Nelson's T) stand out and have skewed people's perceptions.

Washington was flopping throughout, and there was intensity and some chippiness, but the play was just your standard aggressive play. Can you name any particular plays that were uncharacterisitically physical besides those moments?

I believe that those three events were not so much a function of the physical play so much as being a physical of Washington being a chippy/dirty player. Thus, I'm not sure that the officiating had much to do with it.

Maybe we should define "chippy" too. I guess I'm adding some of the other antics into what we might normally call "chippy." For instance, all the shoulder brushes or the incident of trying to get into the huddle. Or some of the hard picks. There were just so many of those little things that have to also be added into the equation. Heck, not to mention past history. All of that should be considered, and it's a part of my thinking - in this particular situation - when I talk about the game being chippy. And yes, it was almost exclusively a Washington thing.

Gary

dukeENG2003
01-25-2008, 12:49 PM
I'm not one making an outcry about the officiating as a whole, as I said, I thought they did an OK job of keeping it under control. I refuse to say they did a good job, as if it was anyone other than Duke put in the situation we were in, I think a fight could have happened. I'll admit clearly that it was those three incidents that I really had a problem with (well, that and the ridiculous mowing down of Paulus).

To allow one player to be involved in all 3 incidents and have him finish the game without being ejected was poor. I'd like to have seen him gone after the undercut incident. If it was Tyler Hansbrough (or really, a LOT of other players other than D-Mark) that received that hard foul from Washington after that previous undercut incident, with the game no longer in question, I think a fight would have broken out. In fact, if our freshman (Singler) hadn't made a REALLY smart play (grabbing Nelson after the play and pulling him away), even our Senior captain might have gotten further into it.

CDu
01-25-2008, 12:54 PM
Maybe we should define "chippy" too. I guess I'm adding some of the other antics into what we might normally call "chippy." For instance, all the shoulder brushes or the incident of trying to get into the huddle. There were just so many of those little things that have to also be added into the equation. Heck, not to mention past history. All of that should be considered, and it's a part of my thinking - in this particular situation - when I talk about the game being chippy. And yes, it was almost exclusively a Washington thing.

Gary

I agree that Washington was doing a LOT of bumping of players early. And he had the theatrics. Outside of that, though, there wasn't much out of the norm (prior to the incidents), and it was pretty much exclusively Washington.

My disagreement was with the suggestion that the game be called tighter and that it was overly physical. It was physical, but not overly so. And it was called pretty tightly. The only thing I might have done was make a bigger point regarding the theatrics by Washington in the first half. But given Washington's nature and history, I'm not sure a warning would have done anything with him. He is what he is - a chippy/dirty player.

_Gary
01-25-2008, 01:02 PM
I agree that Washington was doing a LOT of bumping of players early. And he had the theatrics. Outside of that, though, there wasn't much out of the norm (prior to the incidents), and it was pretty much exclusively Washington.

My disagreement was with the suggestion that the game be called tighter and that it was overly physical. It was physical, but not overly so. And it was called pretty tightly. The only thing I might have done was make a bigger point regarding the theatrics by Washington in the first half. But given Washington's nature and history, I'm not sure a warning would have done anything with him. He is what he is - a chippy/dirty player.

Yeah, I don't think it could have been called a lot tighter as far as personal fouls. I just think the officials could have used other means to get better control of the chippy aspect to the game, and that might have helped limit the personal fouls/physical aspect. In any event, Washington was absolutely the main culprit and I feel he should have been T'd up a couple of times and thrown out of the game. Possibly even before halftime, although without the benefit of seeing the half again I might be wrong on that count. But he certainly could have, and should have, been tossed after the undercut. He had done more than enough beforehand to warrant that being the last thing he did on the court.

Gary

CDu
01-25-2008, 01:11 PM
Yeah, I don't think it could have been called a lot tighter as far as personal fouls. I just think the officials could have used other means to get better control of the chippy aspect to the game, and that might have helped limit the personal fouls/physical aspect. In any event, Washington was absolutely the main culprit and I feel he should have been T'd up a couple of times and thrown out of the game. Possibly even before halftime, although without the benefit of seeing the half again I might be wrong on that count. But he certainly could have, and should have, been tossed after the undercut. He had done more than enough beforehand to warrant that being the last thing he did on the court.

Gary

I don't think that Washington did anything in the first half really worthy of being given a technical. I might have warned him (and Paulus) after the bumping incident with Paulus, although I'm not sure if the officials saw the play or not.

I must continue to play devil's advocate on the undercut. Washington is bumped by Thomas and winds up in Nelson's path. It happens very quickly, and because of that I can easily understand the official's view that it was accidental. Do I personally think it was accidental? No. But I have the benefit of several replays. It very well could have been an accident. As such, the refs ruled it as they saw it.

The refs did give Washington an intentional foul for the collision with Singler. I thought that was excessive for the particular play, but it was a fine way to try to make a point. That was the first time he really stood out as needing to be seriously reprimanded. But honestly, aside from the undercutting play, he really didn't do anything worthy of a technical or ejection in the game. As such, I don't think there was much that could have been done.

4decadedukie
01-25-2008, 01:17 PM
Regardless of calling fouls early and often, the officials essentially abrogated their responsibilities and allowed the game to become almost uncontrolled (at a minimum, far out-of-hand). Therefore, the crux issue is much more a case of establishing the right tone within the first few minutes, rather than a missed call (the goal-tending) here, a questionable call (Nelson's T for only words to Washington) there, and/or a "let them play" decision (not T'ing Washington when he intentionally "bumped" into Duke's huddle) elsewhere.

Players and teams enter contests with established records and well-know attitudes. It is neither unfair nor unwise for refs to go into a game knowing (to cite one example) that Washington is a very talented and zealous player, but that he also has a long, thuggish record of on-court behavior (the Melchionni purposeful kick is a good example). Under those circumstances, I would -- at the very first indication of over-aggressiveness (whether by word or deed, during or after a play) -- have T'ed Washington up and advised Greenberg that Washington would be ejected the next time there was an egregious action.

I return to comments I made after FSU's Reid struck Paulus last Saturday; one of these days, a thuggish act will inadvertently result in a real calamity, with permanent injury to a young man with near-limitless potential. When that happens, the "go easy" attitude of the officials, the coaches, and the ACC will be a fundamental cause of the tragedy.

_Gary
01-25-2008, 01:18 PM
The refs did give Washington an intentional foul for the collision with Singler. I thought that was excessive for the particular play, but it was a fine way to try to make a point. That was the first time he really stood out as needing to be seriously reprimanded. But honestly, aside from the undercutting play, he really didn't do anything worthy of a technical or ejection in the game. As such, I don't think there was much that could have been done.

We will just have to agree to disagree then, because I'd take the cumulative incidents as a whole (everything from the flopping, to the shoulder bumps, to the getting into the huddle, the bump with Paulus, etc). To me that would have been more than enough to justify tossing him by the time we got to the undercut. And I still don't agree that it could be viewed by the refs as accidental when you take everything else into consideration. If Washington is a model citizen up to that point, yes. But not after all the little chippy things he had done prior. Then again, that's just my take.

Gary

CDu
01-25-2008, 01:22 PM
We will just have to agree to disagree then, because I'd take the cumulative incidents as a whole (everything from the flopping, to the shoulder bumps, to the getting into the huddle, the bump with Paulus, etc). To me that would have been more than enough to justify tossing him by the time we got to the undercut. And I still don't agree that it could be viewed by the refs as accidental when you take everything else into consideration. If Washington is a model citizen up to that point, yes. But not after all the little chippy things he had done prior. Then again, that's just my take.

Gary

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I completely disagree. :)

I think a lot of it comes down to our analysis of the actual undercut, and I'm fine to agree to disagree there. But prior to the undercut I really saw nothing warranting ejection, or even a technical.

weezie
01-25-2008, 01:46 PM
I return to comments I made after FSU's Reid struck Paulus last Saturday; one of these days, a thuggish act will inadvertently result in a real calamity, with permanent injury to a young man with near-limitless potential. When that happens, the "go easy" attitude of the officials, the coaches, and the ACC will be a fundamental cause of the tragedy.


Amen, brother, And for my own .02, Washington won't last fifteen minutes on a pro court. The big boys will eat him alive for his stupid little jabs, swings and yappings. Provided he does well in Portsmouth, that is, because he's a long term project and a head case.

billy
01-25-2008, 02:07 PM
1. A T for washington when he took a swing at Kyle in the 1st half after tripping him.


It could just be me, but looking at the replay it doesn't look like Washington was even looking at Singler when he swung (or even a couple of steps leading up to the "swing") -he was looking to his left at his bench or the officials, not sure which

CDu
01-25-2008, 02:10 PM
It could just be me, but looking at the replay it doesn't look like Washington was even looking at Singler when he swung (or even a couple of steps leading up to the "swing") -he was looking to his left at his bench or the officials, not sure which

It's not just you. I don't think there was an intentional swing at Singler there. He was complaining to the officials. If anything, I though the "swing" was a result of the two players running into each other and Washington losing his balance.

Washington did some pretty outlandish things (including the feeble attempt at drawing a foul on that play), but I don't think he took a swing at Singler.

DukeUsul
01-25-2008, 03:46 PM
In general, I think the refs called them game as "closely" as hey should have. 49 fouls in 40 minutes is quite a lot. I don't think they should have made an effort to call more fouls.

I also think they handled the jawing and chippiness correctly. I've got no problem with them T'ing up Markie for mouthing off (assuming he said something T worthy, I have no idea). I noted on at least one occasion (Washington getting an elbow into our huddle) that a ref went over to him and spoke with him. Other than that, there's not much a ref to do to deal with Washington's general douchebaggery and tomfoolery. I don't know about any rules saying you can't be a dickhead. I don't think anyone else on the team was guilty of such.

I did disagree with a few calls:
- The intentional on Washington was incorrect. He did trip up Singler and should have been called for a foul, but it was clear to me he was swinging his arms in frustration while turning to move up court and wasn't intentionally trying to take out Singler.
- The hand check by Delaney that was his 4th foul in the 2nd half was a bad call. There was so much contact on ballhandlers by both teams that that call was wildly inconsistent with the way the rest of the game was called.
- Washington probably should have been called for a flagrant on the undercut. It seemed to me he was looking right at Markie when he stepped under him and turned around. Given that it was a dead ball and could have caused serious injury, I'd have expected a flagrant foul to be called.
- I would have expected a foul on us (was it Gerald?) when we jumped under Washington's legs to grab a loose ball, resulting in Washington being tripped to the floor.
- I also believe Scheyer's 4th foul was a bit of a phantom call. He was making a serious backward move toward the basket and was quite a distance away from the ballhandler who was driving, I'm really not sure what the contact was.
- There was also a moment when David was right under the basket, got a nice old shove in the back from Washington while he laid in the basket. Probably should have been a foul.

I missed the last 9 mins when my DVR crapped out, so I have nothing to add about the rest of the game.

mehmattski
01-25-2008, 04:04 PM
In general, I think the refs called them game as "closely" as hey should have. 49 fouls in 40 minutes is quite a lot. I don't think they should have made an effort to call more fouls.

I also think they handled the jawing and chippiness correctly. I've got no problem with them T'ing up Markie for mouthing off (assuming he said something T worthy, I have no idea). I noted on at least one occasion (Washington getting an elbow into our huddle) that a ref went over to him and spoke with him. Other than that, there's not much a ref to do to deal with Washington's general douchebaggery and tomfoolery. I don't know about any rules saying you can't be a dickhead. I don't think anyone else on the team was guilty of such.

I did disagree with a few calls:
- The intentional on Washington was incorrect. He did trip up Singler and should have been called for a foul, but it was clear to me he was swinging his arms in frustration while turning to move up court and wasn't intentionally trying to take out Singler.
- The hand check by Delaney that was his 4th foul in the 2nd half was a bad call. There was so much contact on ballhandlers by both teams that that call was wildly inconsistent with the way the rest of the game was called.
- Washington probably should have been called for a flagrant on the undercut. It seemed to me he was looking right at Markie when he stepped under him and turned around. Given that it was a dead ball and could have caused serious injury, I'd have expected a flagrant foul to be called.
- I would have expected a foul on us (was it Gerald?) when we jumped under Washington's legs to grab a loose ball, resulting in Washington being tripped to the floor.
- I also believe Scheyer's 4th foul was a bit of a phantom call. He was making a serious backward move toward the basket and was quite a distance away from the ballhandler who was driving, I'm really not sure what the contact was.
- There was also a moment when David was right under the basket, got a nice old shove in the back from Washington while he laid in the basket. Probably should have been a foul.

I missed the last 9 mins when my DVR crapped out, so I have nothing to add about the rest of the game.

I agree with these assessments. One thing that can be added is that, on the possession prior to Scheyer's 4th foul, Lance Thomas pushed Washington squarely in the back on a rebound. This was correctly called a foul. This is an example of how Duke wasn't exactly a saintly bunch in this game. As was pointed out in another thread, Duke doesn't want to be seen this way anyway.

bjornolf
01-25-2008, 04:17 PM
There were a couple of things that I noticed about Washington during the game...

1. It's almost never called now, and I can't remember the last time I saw it, but I have seen players that were RIDICULOUS with the flopping getting T's for unsportsmanlike behavior. I KNOW I've seen T's called for antics over foul calls, and I thought half their team deserved at least one of those.

2. If you watch it in slow motion on a TiVo, not only does Washington stick out his butt (which he actually did several times, sometimes on picks) on the Nelson undercut, he also raises his elbow above his back about six inches right as Nelson contacts him, further rotating DM's body in his fall and "adding" to the undercut. I thought that whole play was dangerous and cheap, and seeing Washington's face on the TiVo when he's doing it, it seemed pretty darn intentional to me. I've NEVER seen somebody stick their butt out like that in rebounding position who didn't at least have a taller player all over them.

3. Also from slo-mo on TiVo, when Washington throws the pick on Paulus that Elmore was commenting on as a GREAT pick that knocks GP over around half-court in the second half (they were barely on the screen at the time), he clearly throws his shoulder into it at the last second, his upper arm and shoulder smashing into the side of GP's head. I know the refs were beyond that by that point and not really looking, but he was definitely putting a little umph into that pick.

I didn't like his flagrant foul, but I thought he got away with a couple of others, so I figured it evened out. He seemed to be baiting Duke all game long, and nobody really fell for it, except maybe DM.

Constantstrain 81
01-25-2008, 04:20 PM
The officials did call a lot of fouls. Because of that, some were inconsistent, but they did call the fouls. Beyond that, however, the officials must ensure that they control the game in terms of fairness and safety. That they seemed to abdicate responsibility from.

Physical play? That's fine - more free throws and more players in foul trouble.

What went on, however, went beyond physical play.

Deron Washington was deliberately inciting Duke players throughout the game. A good official could have and would have stopped that just with a quick ten second comment and warning. None of that appeared to happen. So Deron kept on - time after time after time .... - I could not believe the officials would do nothing about it. I'm a high school principal - Deron would have gotten 7-8 technicals in a high school game with his actions.

In addition, Seth Greenberg set a big of an ugly tone by protesting (via histrionic gestures and facial expressions) every single call - even if it was a fair and correct call. That give credence to his players and his fans to act out on every call.

The refs should have cleaned it up early - without technicals and without additional fouls. They didn't and thankfully, no one was hurt.

dukegirlinsc
01-25-2008, 09:57 PM
I wouldn't even know where to begin.

But, to be a little unbiased...I think fouls are based a lot on opinions and personal judgments. There are some times that I'm screaming for fouls to be called, because my inner-ref believes there should have been one...and vice versa. There are times I'm totally clueless on what the actual foul even was.

So I dunno.
lol

feldspar
01-26-2008, 01:18 AM
I wouldn't even know where to begin.

But, to be a little unbiased...I think fouls are based a lot on opinions and personal judgments. There are some times that I'm screaming for fouls to be called, because my inner-ref believes there should have been one...and vice versa. There are times I'm totally clueless on what the actual foul even was.

So I dunno.
lol

Hey, at least you're honest. :D

Eternal Outlaw
01-26-2008, 02:25 AM
Early on it was clear that the game was going to be chippy unless something was done. I would have sent both teams to their benches and gathered the coaches at the scorers table. I would have imformed them of what the crew was seeing and what we didn't like. I would have told them this was their warning and from now on anything of the kind would be getting a techincal. Then you give the coaches a minute to explain to their team about what needs to stop and then start play.

Lavabe
01-26-2008, 11:47 AM
Q: How would you have officiated Duke/VaTech differently?

A: ugadevil

Besides, he needs the money, what with the jewelry buy and the honeymoon!!

FINALLY, a referee we could trust!:D

Serious question: so just how much training do these referees go through to make it to this level?:confused:
Cheers,
Lavabe

Classof06
01-26-2008, 12:04 PM
I would've given Washington a technical very early to set the tone and let him know all that nonsense wouldn't be tolerated. I probably would've teched him up when he tried to get into Duke's huddle and locked arms with Henderson; that was the 2nd time he initiated contact with a Duke player after the Paulus shoulder bump. It wasn't much but it established a trend and that is enough for a tech.

Already missing Jared Allen, you give Washington a technical in the first half and Greenberg has no choice but to harness in Washington and get him to play basketball.

Classof06
01-26-2008, 12:09 PM
In addition, Seth Greenberg set a big of an ugly tone by protesting (via histrionic gestures and facial expressions) every single call - even if it was a fair and correct call. That give credence to his players and his fans to act out on every call.


Great, great point. I noticed Greenberg's reactions as well. He's the one supposed to be setting an example and he actually did; it was just the wrong example.

A lot of people are rightfully ripping Washington but something needs to be said about Greenberg and the fact that he did nothing throughout the course of the game to discipline his team and get them to just play basketball. If a Duke player pulled a stunt like Washington, Krzyzewski would yank them out of the game before you could blink...

dukegirlinsc
01-26-2008, 01:14 PM
Hey, at least you're honest. :D

Thank youuu, thank youuu. :D

ugadevil
01-26-2008, 01:39 PM
Q: How would you have officiated Duke/VaTech differently?

A: ugadevil

Besides, he needs the money, what with the jewelry buy and the honeymoon!!

FINALLY, a referee we could trust!:D

Serious question: so just how much training do these referees go through to make it to this level?:confused:
Cheers,
Lavabe

I'll have you know that I was refereeing during the Va. Tech/Duke game! It was a middle school game. I thought I was taping the Duke game, but I ended up taping ESPN2 and didn't get to see the game. I wish I could give my opinion on the officiating, but I have no way of watching it. However, as an official, you learn to see things a little differently when you can share the same perspective as the people that do it.

dukestheheat
01-26-2008, 02:10 PM
this may not be a popular opinion but as far as the refs go in the tech game, i wouldn't worry about it. k was able to adjust our warriors to match the tempo created by the crew, and he usually does, but as far as changing anything they did, i have no recommendations.

dth.

feldspar
01-26-2008, 05:29 PM
However, as an official, you learn to see things a little differently when you can share the same perspective as the people that do it.

Bite your toungue! :D

calltheobvious
01-27-2008, 01:13 AM
Serious question: so just how much training do these referees go through to make it to this level?:confused:
Cheers,
Lavabe

Serious answer: probably a lot more than you'd guess. Normally, thousands of games, tens of thousands of dollars in expenses for instructional camps, and hundreds of thousands of miles (and therefore many more $10Ks) logged driving to smaller schools to get the seasoning required before being given a shot at the big-time. Not to mention the priceless opportunity cost of foregone time with spouse, children, friends, etc. Oh, almost forgot the fact that human legs are not designed to take the pounding that officials give their own over the course of decades spent running up and down the court.

The men and women you see on television every night during the winter and early spring have in many ways given their lives to the pursuit of their vocation. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for them, obviously it's a conscious choice. I just don't think enough people recognize the commitment they make to the game and their craft.

ugadevil
01-27-2008, 09:55 AM
Serious answer: probably a lot more than you'd guess. Normally, thousands of games, tens of thousands of dollars in expenses for instructional camps, and hundreds of thousands of miles (and therefore many more $10Ks) logged driving to smaller schools to get the seasoning required before being given a shot at the big-time. Not to mention the priceless opportunity cost of foregone time with spouse, children, friends, etc. Oh, almost forgot the fact that human legs are not designed to take the pounding that officials give their own over the course of decades spent running up and down the court.

The men and women you see on television every night during the winter and early spring have in many ways given their lives to the pursuit of their vocation. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for them, obviously it's a conscious choice. I just don't think enough people recognize the commitment they make to the game and their craft.

You also forgot to mention the hours of game tape that every official has to watch on Rasheed Wallace alone. It's the section entitled, "Definition of a Technical Foul."

Lavabe
01-27-2008, 10:29 AM
Serious answer: probably a lot more than you'd guess. Normally, thousands of games, tens of thousands of dollars in expenses for instructional camps, and hundreds of thousands of miles (and therefore many more $10Ks) logged driving to smaller schools to get the seasoning required before being given a shot at the big-time. Not to mention the priceless opportunity cost of foregone time with spouse, children, friends, etc. Oh, almost forgot the fact that human legs are not designed to take the pounding that officials give their own over the course of decades spent running up and down the court.

The men and women you see on television every night during the winter and early spring have in many ways given their lives to the pursuit of their vocation. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for them, obviously it's a conscious choice. I just don't think enough people recognize the commitment they make to the game and their craft.

Throughout this whole thread, I'd been wondering about this. Thanks for your response.

Cheers,
Lavabe

devilsadvocate85
01-27-2008, 12:54 PM
I don't have the clip, but some may remember that his antics go back to his freshman year in Cameron. If I remember the play correctly, Daniel Ewing hit a jump shot and was running back on defense, minding his own business and Washington literally dove in front of him, flopped and got a foul or maybe even a a technical called on Ewing. I remember thinking from the minute that play happened that the official who called it was going to be embarrassed when he saw what really happened and that Washington was going to be a troublemaker his entire career. I have no clue on the first, but feel quite vindicated on the second.

CDu
01-27-2008, 03:12 PM
I don't have the clip, but some may remember that his antics go back to his freshman year in Cameron. If I remember the play correctly, Daniel Ewing hit a jump shot and was running back on defense, minding his own business and Washington literally dove in front of him, flopped and got a foul or maybe even a a technical called on Ewing. I remember thinking from the minute that play happened that the official who called it was going to be embarrassed when he saw what really happened and that Washington was going to be a troublemaker his entire career. I have no clue on the first, but feel quite vindicated on the second.

I don't remember specific plays, but I very much remember him being a flopper in his first game at Cameron. I also remember the stupid grin he had on his face each time he got away with a terrible call in that game (it happened a couple of times in that game, I believe). It's a shame that there are players like him in sports - they make it much less enjoyable for me.