The "soft" myth and the reality of officiating.

[39 Feet Above Sea Level]

Gary, how is that even possible?!?! What is the point of inviting all this distraction to the NCAA
spectacle showcase games? Just don't select these three and move forward. Discuss your expectations
with the selected officials over the last 15 games. But no, they don't choose that strategy.
Instead, they reward two of the officials who were blatantly responsible for the worst officiated game that most fans have ever seen. Let them have another chance to poorly officiate and affect the outcome of a game.
What is screwier than that??

 

[gary-7]

Gary, how is that even possible?!?! What is the point of inviting all this distraction to the NCAA
spectacle showcase games? Just don't select these three and move forward. Discuss your expectations
with the selected officials over the last 15 games. But no, they don't choose that strategy.
Instead, they reward two of the officials who were blatantly responsible for the worst officiated game that most fans have ever seen. Let them have another chance to poorly officiate and affect the outcome of a game.
What is screwier than that??

In a nutshell, that is the problem. I've literally never seen bad reffing exposed to the nation as clearly as what we saw Saturday. So, if they're supposedly being "evaluated" after every round?... welp... a house-cleaning is on order.

 

[r_u_worthy]

In a nutshell, that is the problem. I've literally never seen bad reffing exposed to the nation as clearly as what we saw Saturday. So, if they're supposedly being "evaluated" after every round?... welp... a house-cleaning is on order.

Wow- that is a complete shock! Apparently the evaluators are basically daring anyone to question them on anything... This is the type of disconnect that will not endear this governing body to anybody: fans, media, or institutions. Feels like they are setting themselves up for a "$#!%" storm. Why?? Their credibility is on the line.

 

[gary-7]

Wow- that is a complete shock! Apparently the evaluators are basically daring anyone to question them on anything... This is the type of disconnect that will not endear this governing body to anybody: fans, media, or institutions. Feels like they are setting themselves up for a "$#!%" storm. Why?? Their credibility is on the line.

Yeah, and problem is, the evaluation process itself is fatally flawed. Someone mentioned earlier ITT that the old Big East led a charge to integrate no-blood-no-foul standards into the NCAAT, and sadly, once refs became conference-"affiliated" (as opposed to the old model of conference-exclusive) the lazier approach seaped in around he country.... and again, coaches who teach "physical" short-cuts are all for it.

Hell, it seems like every school in the sorry state of Texas plays like that these days. And I've watched at least parts of pretty much every NCAAT game this year, and rock-fights have become the rule rather than the exception... and more often than not, the dirtier team (or a certain team with a retiring coach) reaps the benefits.

 

[bluetoe]

Yes you can be unintentionally dangerous: Going hard for a block of a break away and taking out the legs or hitting the head of a jumping player resulting in injury or its potential can be BOTH brutal and unintentional. Undercutting someone during a rebound can be too! (If I back up trying to box out and am unaware the the guy just jumped, I could unintentionally create a very dangerous situation) There is no benefit from asking refs to read minds. A player just grabbing someone is obviously intentional but most other scenarios would require the refs to be mind-readers. It is already a difficult job trying to establish the threshold between the two levels without adding determining intent!

Why do you think I put the word dangerous in parentheses? It was obviously to exclude it from the other words, and not to pick it out to emphasize. Of course it could be dangerous. So could a flagrant 1. But the rule distinguishing the two flagrants is spelled out, and the question of intent is certainly implied by the inclusion of brutality, harshness, cruelty, and punishing, none of which tend to come about unintentionally. Even the term 'flagrant' itself implies intent.

Refs being mind readers? Are refs not being mind readers when they DON'T call an intentional foul at the end of the game when one team wants to put the other team on the foul line? Some judgement calls aren't hard to make and others may be, but one thing refs have to do is judge.

Additionally, in a previous post you said "He meant to give a hit, but not to the head." 'Meant to' and 'intended to' have the same meaning.

 

[bluetoe]

Well, first, blondie didn't just hold his leg lock but he readjusted it as Bacot moved backwards and re-secured it in MMA fashion, unquestionable intent shown by re-securing the leg lock.

Now yes, the NCAA says any blow to the head, be it intentional or not is a flagrant and yes Manek's elbow did make some contact with blondies face. But it was not a full force elbow, had manek had intent to harm there would have been blood. But the fact is blondie ducked in to Manek's elbow and sold it as worse than what it was. I can buy it as a F-1 by the technical application of the rule but under no circumstance was Brady guilty of a F-2. The NCAA should issue the kid a public apology and that entire crew should be at very least done for this post season. That was a shameful act by those refs, I would fire them if I could!

The way this game was called, it really looked to me like there was more than a little gambling influence going on in what they were allowing Baylor to get away with and calling touch fouls on UNC players? Example, think it was Caleb in the back court, they pressured him out to the half court line, when Caleb tried to drive around the defender that defender bodied Caleb and forced him back to step on the half court line. Now that was a crystal clear foul, out in the open for all to see and no foul call, they gave the ball back to Baylor? As I recall, at least 3 of Caleb's fouls were touch fouls, ok call the touch fouls, that is fine but call the other teams for their touch fouls, at very least call them for their hard fouls!

you're mostly agreeing with me, right?

 

[TarHeelMark]

rock-fights

I think I've heard that term more times in the last month (in describing CBB games) than in my entire life in general. It's pathetic that its becoming the accepted norm for teams to play like Marquette, Baylor, etc.

 

[gary-7]

I think I've heard that term more times in the last month (in describing CBB games) than in my entire life in general. It's pathetic that its becoming the accepted norm for teams to play like Marquette, Baylor, etc.

Was just thinking the same thing as I typed it...

 

[TPFKAPFS]

1. All of those words can be unintentional, including "dangerous"! They imply a difference in the extent NOT intent! They are used to make the difference as clear as possible. Intent requires real proof OR mind reading. An obvious grab at the end of a game can clearly be seen as intentional, whereas many hits during the meat of the game simply MIGHT be intentional no matter how hard! (even Henderthug's assault COULD have been unintentional but it was clearly dangerous and cruel!) A balled fist punching into someone's face or a leg lock that you won't let go of is clearly intentional, but an elbow without looking at the target is open to wildly varying interpretations!

2. My speaking as a former athlete ONLY describes what I most likely would have done in that situation, but it in no way gives definitive proof of what Manek intended! It could be exactly on point AND it just as easily could be the exact opposite of what he was thinking! BTW: a baller delivering a message during a game is part of basketball and happens constantly and happens usually within the rules. IMO even if he "meant" to give the hit, he gets the F1 as long as it is not dangerously extreme or doesn't result in injury! If Manek doesn't tell us we can only speculate = reading minds! Charge/Block = judgement; Intent/Unintentional = Mind reading (in most cases).

Flagrant:
adjective

1. of something considered wrong or immoral; conspicuously or obviously offensive.

Flagrant Foul: n basketball, a flagrant foul is a personal foul that involves excessive or violent contact that could injure the fouled player. A flagrant foul may be unintentional or purposeful.

(This is the definition used and the word itself doesn't even imply intent!)

With video, this call should have been easy, but these idiots were clearly not up to the moment!

 

[bluetoe]

1. All of those words can be unintentional, including "dangerous"! They imply a difference in the extent NOT intent! They are used to make the difference as clear as possible. Intent requires real proof OR mind reading. An obvious grab at the end of a game can clearly be seen as intentional, whereas many hits during the meat of the game simply MIGHT be intentional no matter how hard! (even Henderthug's assault COULD have been unintentional but it was clearly dangerous and cruel!) A balled fist punching into someone's face or a leg lock that you won't let go of is clearly intentional, but an elbow without looking at the target is open to wildly varying interpretations!

2. My speaking as a former athlete ONLY describes what I most likely would have done in that situation, but it in no way gives definitive proof of what Manek intended! It could be exactly on point AND it just as easily could be the exact opposite of what he was thinking! BTW: a baller delivering a message during a game is part of basketball and happens constantly and happens usually within the rules. IMO even if he "meant" to give the hit, he gets the F1 as long as it is not dangerously extreme or doesn't result in injury! If Manek doesn't tell us we can only speculate = reading minds! Charge/Block = judgement; Intent/Unintentional = Mind reading (in most cases).

Flagrant:
adjective

1. of something considered wrong or immoral; conspicuously or obviously offensive.

Flagrant Foul: n basketball, a flagrant foul is a personal foul that involves excessive or violent contact that could injure the fouled player. A flagrant foul may be unintentional or purposeful.

(This is the definition used and the word itself doesn't even imply intent!)

With video, this call should have been easy, but these idiots were clearly not up to the moment!

a difference in the extent of WHAT? The extent of the action which indicates intent is what.

"Flagrant:
adjective

1. of something considered wrong or immoral; conspicuously or obviously offensive."

how can something unintentional be considered wrong or immoral?

"Flagrant Foul: n basketball, a flagrant foul is a personal foul that involves excessive or violent contact that could injure the fouled player. A flagrant foul may be unintentional (flagrant 1) or purposeful (flagrant 2)."


sorry, I had to get this in but that's the end of it for me. I think what I think and you think what you think, and that's cool.

 

[SuperFan61]

In live action I immediately thought flagrant 2. If it is deemed an intentional elbow and it lands to the neck or head it is a flagrant 2.

I'm guessing Brady wanted to crack him in the chest? He did glance back after getting shoved, with no call, he did bow up, and he landed to the head. I thought flagrant 2. There was intent, maybe not intended for the head, but that is where it landed.

You might be the only person in America who thinks that. How’s that island you’re living on?

 

[TPFKAPFS]

I agree with the agreeing to disagree idea. I believe you just might have added the words in parentheses yourself, however. I guess if you lobby the rules committee hard enough they might add those words to the actual wording??? To answer: A drunk driver who kills a small child in an accident did not INTEND to kill, but was certainly wrong and it could be immoral as well if he doesn't show the proper contrition or honesty!

I'm really done too and will not check this thread again;

 

[DSouthr]

Why do you think I put the word dangerous in parentheses? It was obviously to exclude it from the other words, and not to pick it out to emphasize. Of course it could be dangerous. So could a flagrant 1. But the rule distinguishing the two flagrants is spelled out, and the question of intent is certainly implied by the inclusion of brutality, harshness, cruelty, and punishing, none of which tend to come about unintentionally. Even the term 'flagrant' itself implies intent.

Refs being mind readers? Are refs not being mind readers when they DON'T call an intentional foul at the end of the game when one team wants to put the other team on the foul line? Some judgement calls aren't hard to make and others may be, but one thing refs have to do is judge.

Additionally, in a previous post you said "He meant to give a hit, but not to the head." 'Meant to' and 'intended to' have the same meaning.

While "intent" has to be a judgement call it is not difficult to see. While folks can parse words all they want, a F-2 is supposed to consider intent, did he mean to take that action and for that action have the intent to harm. Was it in any way a basketball move or a move intended to harm. The F-2 comes with an ejection, you eject a guy for the intent to bring harm, the blondie leg lock for example was clear intent when he refused to release and then actually re-secured it as Bacot tried to move out of the leg lock.

Lot of folks suggest the F-2 as it applies to elbows was put in place to eliminate players from holding the ball and violently swinging elbows to fend of anyone trying to take the ball from them and I get that but the act of violently swinging those elbows in that circumstance is an intentional act by the guy with the ball, get close to me and I will make you wish you didn't.

Watch it closely, Manek if anything pulled his elbow when he realized it would contact the head, you know he did because had he had intent to hurt blondie, blondie would have been on the floor blood spouting. What I saw was blondie hit Manek with a fore arm shiver that went uncalled in front of a ref, ducking his head as he delivered that, and Manek trying to hold block out position with a elbow hold off to what he thought would be the chest but when Blondie ducked to deliver that fore arm, what should have been his chest was the head. Meaning, completely accidental and was a basketball move done all the time blocking out.

I am really concerned that UNC may feel as if they can not match the physicality that teams bring at them out of fear of the refs calling BS calls on them for trying to match what is put on them. So far, both teams we have faced in this NCAAT have tried to bully us so for me nothing indicates that any other team or teams we see in this tourney will try the same thing, why not if they do not get punished for it and UNC does when they try to match.

 

[SuperFan61]

I'm not. That's one institution that has completely exceeded it's usefulness.

The NCAA exists solely for the enrichment of a bunch of people with do-nothing jobs. Very little purpose that I know of exists. I mean, they organize events, but beyond that what do they really do? NOTHING

 

[strummingram]

While "intent" has to be a judgement call it is not difficult to see. While folks can parse words all they want, a F-2 is supposed to consider intent, did he mean to take that action and for that action have the intent to harm. Was it in any way a basketball move or a move intended to harm. The F-2 comes with an ejection, you eject a guy for the intent to bring harm, the blondie leg lock for example was clear intent when he refused to release and then actually re-secured it as Bacot tried to move out of the leg lock.

Lot of folks suggest the F-2 as it applies to elbows was put in place to eliminate players from holding the ball and violently swinging elbows to fend of anyone trying to take the ball from them and I get that but the act of violently swinging those elbows in that circumstance is an intentional act by the guy with the ball, get close to me and I will make you wish you didn't.

Watch it closely, Manek if anything pulled his elbow when he realized it would contact the head, you know he did because had he had intent to hurt blondie, blondie would have been on the floor blood spouting. What I saw was blondie hit Manek with a fore arm shiver that went uncalled in front of a ref, ducking his head as he delivered that, and Manek trying to hold block out position with a elbow hold off to what he thought would be the chest but when Blondie ducked to deliver that fore arm, what should have been his chest was the head. Meaning, completely accidental and was a basketball move done all the time blocking out.

I am really concerned that UNC may feel as if they can not match the physicality that teams bring at them out of fear of the refs calling BS calls on them for trying to match what is put on them. So far, both teams we have faced in this NCAAT have tried to bully us so for me nothing indicates that any other team or teams we see in this tourney will try the same thing, why not if they do not get punished for it and UNC does when they try to match.

Brady never intended to make contact, and certainly not on that level. Rodman Jr embellished the severity. It's a completely absurd notion that he was ejected.

 

[bluetoe]

While "intent" has to be a judgement call it is not difficult to see. While folks can parse words all they want, a F-2 is supposed to consider intent, did he mean to take that action and for that action have the intent to harm. Was it in any way a basketball move or a move intended to harm. The F-2 comes with an ejection, you eject a guy for the intent to bring harm, the blondie leg lock for example was clear intent when he refused to release and then actually re-secured it as Bacot tried to move out of the leg lock.

Lot of folks suggest the F-2 as it applies to elbows was put in place to eliminate players from holding the ball and violently swinging elbows to fend of anyone trying to take the ball from them and I get that but the act of violently swinging those elbows in that circumstance is an intentional act by the guy with the ball, get close to me and I will make you wish you didn't.

Watch it closely, Manek if anything pulled his elbow when he realized it would contact the head, you know he did because had he had intent to hurt blondie, blondie would have been on the floor blood spouting. What I saw was blondie hit Manek with a fore arm shiver that went uncalled in front of a ref, ducking his head as he delivered that, and Manek trying to hold block out position with a elbow hold off to what he thought would be the chest but when Blondie ducked to deliver that fore arm, what should have been his chest was the head. Meaning, completely accidental and was a basketball move done all the time blocking out.

I am really concerned that UNC may feel as if they can not match the physicality that teams bring at them out of fear of the refs calling BS calls on them for trying to match what is put on them. So far, both teams we have faced in this NCAAT have tried to bully us so for me nothing indicates that any other team or teams we see in this tourney will try the same thing, why not if they do not get punished for it and UNC does when they try to match.

OK, NOW I know we're on the same page. And I of course agree.

I became immediately concerned that the discombobulation caused by the crappy, one-sided officiating in the second half might disrupt the positive mindset we had been feeding on up to that point. Here's hoping Hubert recognizes that possibility and guides them back into the positive mental groove we have been on. It's a wonderful thing to behold, regardless of outcome.

So far as the Manek episode is concerned, I haven't see anyone address the theatrics involved, I don't believe that whatever happened should have resulted in Sochan stuck to the floor like he'd been run over by a herd of buffalo, but I do think that the refs took his act into account. Maybe they've wised up a little after having seen the video a few more times.

 

[bluetoe]

I agree with the agreeing to disagree idea. I believe you just might have added the words in parentheses yourself, however. I guess if you lobby the rules committee hard enough they might add those words to the actual wording??? To answer: A drunk driver who kills a small child in an accident did not INTEND to kill, but was certainly wrong and it could be immoral as well if he doesn't show the proper contrition or honesty!

I'm really done too and will not check this thread again;

I did add those words and I should have done more to make that apparent (it's why I left them unbolded). I'm glad we didn't let this get acrimonious, I respect your opinion too much to allow that. On the other hand, this kind of back and forth does help settle on some understanding beyond what was started with, and that's a good thing. You made good points.

 

[WoadBlue]

I think I've heard that term more times in the last month (in describing CBB games) than in my entire life in general. It's pathetic that its becoming the accepted norm for teams to play like Marquette, Baylor, etc.

Call it The Revenge of John Thompson and Nolan Richardson. Officials today tend to call games as that pair wanted then called. Each of them wanted to have free pass to get away with so much shoving and banging that they made old time Big Ten basketball (widely regarded as the most 'physical' conference before the Big East was formed) seem very polite, perhaps even soft.

 

[bluetoe]

Call it The Revenge of John Thompson and Nolan Richardson. Officials today tend to call games as that pair wanted then called. Each of them wanted to have free pass to get away with so much shoving and banging that they made old time Big Ten basketball (widely regarded as the most 'physical' conference before the Big East was formed) seem very polite, perhaps even soft.

I was going to mention the Big Ten when the Big East's physicality was being discussed recently. I remember an almost full on riot involving Minnesota and another team that was sparked by hooligan play. Many years ago, so I can't provide a time frame, but I believe the BT was also a conference wanting the sixth foul.

 

[dtodd4475]

I was going to mention the Big Ten when the Big East's physicality was being discussed recently. I remember an almost full on riot involving Minnesota and another team that was sparked by hooligan play. Many years ago, so I can't provide a time frame, but I believe the BT was also a conference wanting the sixth foul.

Dave Winfield of baseball fame was on that team, and it was indeed UGLY !!!!! Knee to the ol'apple sack while faking to help up the injured Ohio State center, after a clear fake block attempt punch. Players then chasing down other Buckeyes and bench players going over to stomp the head of the injured Buckeye player prone on the ground.

 

[bluetoe]

Dave Winfield of baseball fame was on that team, and it was indeed UGLY !!!!! Knee to the ol'apple sack while faking to help up the injured Ohio State center, after a clear fake block attempt punch. Players then chasing down other Buckeyes and bench players going over to stomp the head of the injured Buckeye player prone on the ground.

awesome, I have no recall for that kind of detail but your play-by-play is helping bring it back. I remember being sickened by that kind of animalistic behavior breaking out in a basketball game of all things....and I remember thinking thank God we weren't like that in the ACC.

Great use of the term 'apple sack', I might add.

 

[SuperFan61]

The point of officiating is to control the game, and how to do that hasn't changed at all. You set the tone early in the game as to what is allowed and what isn't, and things don't get out of control. That hasn't happened in the games that I've seen in the tournament, and it certainly hasn't happened in either of our games.

The Manek play was nothing. He was actually fouled by Rodman prior to the elbow, but since pushing and shoving had been let go by the officials the entire game, it resulted in what we saw. Since the officials refused to control the game, the players were forced to do it. The game was officiated about as badly as is possible.

 

[WoadBlue]

I was going to mention the Big Ten when the Big East's physicality was being discussed recently. I remember an almost full on riot involving Minnesota and another team that was sparked by hooligan play. Many years ago, so I can't provide a time frame, but I believe the BT was also a conference wanting the sixth foul.

I remember that Minnesota Ohio St game. It was horrifying. There should have been criminal charges.

I don't recall whether the BT also wanted the 6th foul. The BT still had rough play by ACC standards, but the BT by then never would have allowed things that happened in the BE every week.

 

[DSouthr]

Yeah, and problem is, the evaluation process itself is fatally flawed. Someone mentioned earlier ITT that the old Big East led a charge to integrate no-blood-no-foul standards into the NCAAT, and sadly, once refs became conference-"affiliated" (as opposed to the old model of conference-exclusive) the lazier approach seaped in around he country.... and again, coaches who teach "physical" short-cuts are all for it.

Hell, it seems like every school in the sorry state of Texas plays like that these days. And I've watched at least parts of pretty much every NCAAT game this year, and rock-fights have become the rule rather than the exception... and more often than not, the dirtier team (or a certain team with a retiring coach) reaps the benefits.

Yes but duke is playing a team from what state tonight? Not gonna lie, I would LOVE to see the dukies have to deal with a team that takes it physically to them like Baylor as able to with us and watch the refs swallow their whistles, I don't think duke could handle it.

 

[gary-7]

Yes but duke is playing a team from what state tonight? Not gonna lie, I would LOVE to see the dukies have to deal with a team that takes it physically to them like Baylor as able to with us and watch the refs swallow their whistles, I don't think duke could handle it.

Guess it depends on how effective the Rat's "stern lectures" to the refs are, huh?

 

[dtodd4475]

Tech needs to get their dee going, especially against the big. If they do they are in good shape

 

[gary-7]

Tech needs to get their dee going, especially against the big. If they do they are in good shape

And Houston is Baylor in diferent uniforms. A filthy-dirty team with a dirty coach.

 

[dtodd4475]

Sampson can coach his ass off though!!

 

[dtodd4475]

And Houston is Baylor in diferent uniforms. A filthy-dirty team with a dirty coach.

Gary you are a Pearl defender, how is Sampson worse. Just a question ??

 

[gary-7]

Gary you are a Pearl defender, how is Sampson worse. Just a question ??

Not a Pearl defender at all. Just calling it straight. Look it up for yourself. Bruce is a bit oily but as a cheater he pales in comparison to the true scoundrels out there.
And f*** Sampson. He cheats AND coaches thuggery.