How would you have officiated Duke/VaTech differently?

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.