Southeast Region

[southsider2k5]

The director of officiating they had on TV said that a point of emphasis this year was to call the whole game by the same rules, no matter what the situation or time of the game. If it's a foul, then it's a foul no matter what.

 

That is just dumb if you ask me.

[witesoxfan]

The director of officiating they had on TV said that a point of emphasis this year was to call the whole game by the same rules, no matter what the situation or time of the game. If it's a foul, then it's a foul no matter what.

 

So if a team was winning by 25 and there was little time left on the clock, they would still call every single foul? Unless the goal of the player was to foul the other player, I don't think so.

[danman31]

The refs shouldn't be put in the situation to make judgment calls. A foul is a foul is a foul. Don't like it? Tell the player not to foul. It's much simpler that way.

[southsider2k5]

The refs shouldn't be put in the situation to make judgment calls. A foul is a foul is a foul. Don't like it? Tell the player not to foul. It's much simpler that way.

 

An officials job is always to make judgment calls. With all of the contact and offenses that take place on a floor, you realistically couldn't go five seconds without calling a foul if you really went by the letter of the law. Lean a little on a screen? Technically that is an offensive foul. Get too much of your hand on the ball? Traveling. Knock into a screener? Foul. Take a shot after the whistle blows? Delay of game. Argue with an official? Technical foul. Go past the coaches line? Technical.

 

If there weren't judgments made every second of a basketball game, the game itself would never get played.

[LittleHurt05]

That is just dumb if you ask me.

 

I don't see what's so dumb about it. A foul is a foul no matter what point of the game it's during. Should a baseball umpire call pitches differently in the bottom of the 9th than in the top of the 2nd?

 

So if a team was winning by 25 and there was little time left on the clock, they would still call every single foul? Unless the goal of the player was to foul the other player, I don't think so.

 

Technically, they should. Do they? I don't know, I try to change the channel by that point. Plus, there is way less contact going on at that point of the game.

 

[Texsox]

It doesn't seem silly to be consistent with your calls. As long as players know what to expect, it should be all good.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't see what's so dumb about it. A foul is a foul no matter what point of the game it's during. Should a baseball umpire call pitches differently in the bottom of the 9th than in the top of the 2nd?

 

 

Technically, they should. Do they? I don't know, I try to change the channel by that point. Plus, there is way less contact going on at that point of the game.

 

Yes they should call the game differently, and do all of the time if it is a 10 run game in the 9th versus a tie game.

 

And they do call basketball games differently based on score. It happens all of the time.

[danman31]

An officials job is always to make judgment calls. With all of the contact and offenses that take place on a floor, you realistically couldn't go five seconds without calling a foul if you really went by the letter of the law. Lean a little on a screen? Technically that is an offensive foul. Get too much of your hand on the ball? Traveling. Knock into a screener? Foul. Take a shot after the whistle blows? Delay of game. Argue with an official? Technical foul. Go past the coaches line? Technical.

 

If there weren't judgments made every second of a basketball game, the game itself would never get played.

That's fine, but if you make the calls there's no argument against that. People are going to complain about a late call either way. If it's a clear foul and they call the foul the only person you can blame is the player committing the foul. I'd rather blame players for doing something stupid than the refs. This seems like a no brainer to me.

[southsider2k5]

That's fine, but if you make the calls there's no argument against that. People are going to complain about a late call either way. If it's a clear foul and they call the foul the only person you can blame is the player committing the foul. I'd rather blame players for doing something stupid than the refs. This seems like a no brainer to me.

 

You'll never hear my argue that it wasn't the players fault to put themselves in that situation. It still doesn't mean I want to see a foul called 90 feet and 50 feet away from the basket when the plays has a combined chance of zero in changing the outcome of the game prior to the whistle blowing.

[whitesoxfan99]

You'll never hear my argue that it wasn't the players fault to put themselves in that situation. It still doesn't mean I want to see a foul called 90 feet and 50 feet away from the basket when the plays has a combined chance of zero in changing the outcome of the game prior to the whistle blowing.

 

That first foul absolutely could have changed the outcome of the game, with a little over 2 seconds left and where the Pitt player caught the ball you can get a makeable shot, not a good shot but a makeable one. That last shot would have been a prayer if Howard even gets it off to begin with so that is a little more questionable even if it was a clear foul.

[southsider2k5]

That first foul absolutely could have changed the outcome of the game, with a little over 2 seconds left and where the Pitt player caught the ball you can get a makeable shot, not a good shot but a makeable one. That last shot would have been a prayer if Howard even gets it off to begin with so that is a little more questionable even if it was a clear foul.

 

From the extreme sideline of half court isn't a "makeable shot", especially with a defender in the area. That is a miracle shot. Howard's throw would have just been a bigger miracle. The combined chances of either of those shots going in would be under 1%.

[LittleHurt05]

From the extreme sideline of half court isn't a "makeable shot", especially with a defender in the area. That is a miracle shot. Howard's throw would have just been a bigger miracle. The combined chances of either of those shots going in would be under 1%.

 

What % chance does a shot have to be "makeable" that you will call a foul on a defender running into & bumping the shooter? 3%? 5%? Does have to be a certain distance away from the hoop? Like if the shooter is beyond halfcourt, you can foul him all you want cause the shot is not "makeable", so a foul won't be called? If Mack doesnt run into him, maybe he can get a jump stop, square up and at least get a clean look at the hoop. Mack's physical bump prevented him from doing that, hence the required foul call.

 

About the Pitt foul, I disagree but I can see the reasoning. But the first foul directly affected the shooter's ability to make the shot, no matter how tough it would have been. You have to call that.

[southsider2k5]

What % chance does a shot have to be "makeable" that you will call a foul on a defender running into & bumping the shooter? 3%? 5%? Does have to be a certain distance away from the hoop? Like if the shooter is beyond halfcourt, you can foul him all you want cause the shot is not "makeable", so a foul won't be called? If Mack doesnt run into him, maybe he can get a jump stop, square up and at least get a clean look at the hoop. Mack's physical bump prevented him from doing that, hence the required foul call.

 

About the Pitt foul, I disagree but I can see the reasoning. But the first foul directly affected the shooter's ability to make the shot, no matter how tough it would have been. You have to call that.

 

You could have said the same thing about the Howard foul. Just looking at the plays, neither had a realistic chance of happening.

[RockRaines]

From the extreme sideline of half court isn't a "makeable shot", especially with a defender in the area. That is a miracle shot. Howard's throw would have just been a bigger miracle. The combined chances of either of those shots going in would be under 1%.

Thats what UM thought when they allowed Evan Turner to take that very same shot.

[southsider2k5]

Thats what UM thought when they allowed Evan Turner to take that very same shot.

 

And I would still contend that there are at least 100 times that it didn't happen.

[IlliniKrush]

I don't see what's so dumb about it. A foul is a foul no matter what point of the game it's during. Should a baseball umpire call pitches differently in the bottom of the 9th than in the top of the 2nd?

That's not a good example. Of course you don't call pitches differently. Well, unless the game is a complete route. At which point even the coaches want the zone bigger on both sides.

 

However, do you want to call a balk with the winning run on 3rd for some minor violation that doesn't affect the baserunner? That's the judgment I'm talking about. As an official, I would say that's poor judgment to balk that run in.

 

It does happen in games all the time, across every sport. It happens in overtime of NHL playoff games. You try to make the calls that effect scoring plays or things that are must-calls (high sticks), and let the rest go. You don't want to give one team a huge advantage when that advantage wasn't earned and the act by the other team didn't hurt anything.

 

The player was a complete dumbass for putting the official in a position to make that call. But put it this way, had their been no foul called, I don't think the talk would have been "how could he not call a foul?!?!? Butler should have won on free throws?!?!?!" I HIGHLY doubt this. No one would have talked about it because there was no way anything was coming out of that play. They play OT, and that's that.

 

Note I am only talking about the last call. I completely agree 2nd to last foul had to be made. To me the difference between the two plays is significant.

Edited March 22, 2011 by IlliniKrush

[witesoxfan]

That's not a good example. Of course you don't call pitches differently. Well, unless the game is a complete route. At which point even the coaches want the zone bigger on both sides.

 

However, do you want to call a balk with the winning run on 3rd for some minor violation that doesn't affect the baserunner? That's the judgment I'm talking about. As an official, I would say that's poor judgment to balk that run in.

 

It does happen in games all the time, across every sport. It happens in overtime of NHL playoff games. You try to make the calls that effect scoring plays or things that are must-calls (high sticks), and let the rest go. You don't want to give one team a huge advantage when that advantage wasn't earned and the act by the other team didn't hurt anything.

 

The player was a complete dumbass for putting the official in a position to make that call. But put it this way, had their been no foul called, I don't think the talk would have been "how could he not call a foul?!?!? Butler should have won on free throws?!?!?!" I HIGHLY doubt this. No one would have talked about it because there was no way anything was coming out of that play. They play OT, and that's that.

 

Note I am only talking about the last call. I completely agree 2nd to last foul had to be made. To me the difference between the two plays is significant.

 

Spot on.

[iamshack]

Who are we on tonight, fellas?

 

Lots of my buddies are making big plays on BYU tonight, but I just don't know if I am buying it...

[RockRaines]

Wisconsin by a TON

[Rowand44]

Who are we on tonight, fellas?

 

Lots of my buddies are making big plays on BYU tonight, but I just don't know if I am buying it...

With out looking at the spread, I'd say Florida just has way too much size for BYU and this is where the loss of Davies will really do in the Jimmers.

 

Wisconsin by a TON

You're crazy. That game will be within 5 points either way for sure.

[chimpy2121]

I walked past Jimmer yesterday at the arena and he's a little shorter than me (I'm 6'2"). He only missed one shot in practice too. I hope they win, but I'm worried about the inside game.

 

[Rowand44]

I walked past Jimmer yesterday at the arena and he's a little shorter than me (I'm 6'2"). He only missed one shot in practice too. I hope they win, but I'm worried about the inside game.

 

That was awful.

[iamshack]

With out looking at the spread, I'd say Florida just has way too much size for BYU and this is where the loss of Davies will really do in the Jimmers.

 

 

You're crazy. That game will be within 5 points either way for sure.

Yeah, I picked Florida to beat BYU in my bracket and that was my opinion before I talked to these guys. But they are all putting like 5 bills on BYU and so I'll have to either lay off or just bet with them. It's no fun betting the favorite when your buddies all have a big play on the underdog.

Edited March 24, 2011 by iamshack

[RockRaines]

You're crazy. That game will be within 5 points either way for sure.

You're crazy....jerk

[Soxbadger]

From most advanced statistics Wisconsin is more than a +4.5 favorite, but they are a really hard team to bet on (or predict). If they shoot well they likely win, if they shoot bad they lose. Wisconsin is going to get its fair share of open 3 looks and its just a matter of how many go in.

 

As a Wisconsin fan you couldnt ask for more than getting a chance at being in the Elite 8 by beating Butler. I know Butler has magic and all that jazz, but Id still rather be facing them than OSU, Kansas, etc.

 

Should be a good game, my prediction is team to 70 first wins.