MBB: State University of New York Athletic Conference

Started by bamm, March 12, 2005, 09:24:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bamm

It is apparent the referee had a discussion with Harris -- a warning.  If he was decent enough to give the player a warning and the player chose not to heed that warning, he can give him a technical at any point after that, regardless of game situation as far as I'm concerned.

bports

Wooster won the game and they deserved to win because they made the plays in overtime. But that mistake the refs made was a joke and it cost bport one point and possibly two if the shooter would have took that 2nd shot. I wont say it cost bport the game because who knows how the game would have been different. You cant give the refs a free pass on this though, a game being played at that level should be officiated at a high level and that was a high school jv game type of mistake. With that being said i think bports big mistake was in that 6 min stretch was trying to pound the ball inside time after time and it just was not there. Lets be serious here all these referees stood and watched wooster take 3 ft's before anyone realized this? Im just an average basketball junkie and even i know you shoot the T before the personal foul.

zola

Just back from Rochester, and not surprised to see the officials are a large part of the conversation here.

First - Rochester is a fabulous venue for any tournament weekend any time of the year. I've been to Wooster and never wish to return. Let's call the Fisher facility "cozy", and in a D3 kind of way, an exciting, location for a regional finals.

Re: the officials. The officials consistently get a pass and have their designated apologists on this board and in other venues. The Pope is subject to more direct criticism than the beloved Zebras. I've been ripped here for actually mentioning officials by name. Now, thanks to the Bush administration, that is prohibited by the Patriot Act.

As to the circumstances of the error of the free throw administration, incorrect free throw administration is one of only several correctable errors by rule. Given that the rules recognize that free throw administration provides significant opportunity for error, it is reasonable to expect a crew to take the time necessary to guarantee the correct administration of free throws, particularly when both personal and technical free throws are concurrently awarded, prior to their administration. This crew did not.

While we won't find their names here, I'm sure their names appear on their game checks.

Looking forward to Salem. Brockport will be missed.

JQV

Quote from: zola on March 12, 2007, 06:02:56 PM
Now, thanks to the Bush administration, that is prohibited by the Patriot Act.

Is that seriously part of the Patriot Act?

Pat Coleman

Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

ScotsFan

Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 12, 2007, 06:34:00 PM
Names are on the box score:

http://athletics.wooster.edu/mb/boxes/2006-07/brockport.php
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Patriot Act??? ::)

Quote from: bports on March 12, 2007, 04:03:06 PM
Im just an average basketball junkie and even i know you shoot the T before the personal foul.
This is not always the case.  There are instances where the technicals are called not in the line of play or something along those lines.  It happened to Wooster earlier this season actually.  They were playing Wabash in a close game and a Wabash player was trying to save a ball from going out of bounds and called a timeout of which Wabash had none left.  The result is a technical, but not one in which Wooster retained possession after the tecnical ft's were taken.  From what I gathered from the type of technical called on Harris, it was along those same lines in that it occurred after the pf was called and B'port was going to have possesion after the ft's were taken.   With Fulk shooting the technicals second, it would have meant that Wooster was going to get possession, so it is actually a good thing for B'port that the alternate official caught the error.   That error was that  the technical ft's had to be shot first and then Vandervaart would shoot his ft's like a normal personal foul with everyone lining the lane in case of a miss and B'port would then gain possession if Vandervaart made them both which was the case.

The bottom line is that there are rules in place that allow the officials to stop the game if there was an error that is a correctable mistake.  Apparantly this was one of those instances and it also allowed for the score to be reset to where the mistake was made.  Was it unfortunate that this mistake had to be made?  Absolutely.  But the bottom line is that the correct call was made and if the officials hadn't corrected things, Wooster would have still had the ball after Fulk's fts with the possibility of taking the lead so you can't really look at that one made up ft as the sole reason B'port lost!

In regards to calling the technical or not calling the technical, I don't think anyone is really to blame other than Harris himself.  It is pretty evident that the officials went out of their way to warn this young man to cool it and stop showing up the officials.  If he chooses not to heed those warnings and gets t'd up for it, then I see no one to blame but Harris for not keeping his cool and for not keeping his mouth shut.  He should know better than letting his emotions get the better of him at a critical point of the game. 

Pat Coleman

The lead had already gone from 12 points to four when the technical was called. The tide was already turning. This didn't help but it wasn't like it sparked it.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Chairman JoseQViper on March 12, 2007, 06:16:50 PM
Quote from: zola on March 12, 2007, 06:02:56 PM
Now, thanks to the Bush administration, that is prohibited by the Patriot Act.

Is that seriously part of the Patriot Act?

Actually, that level of privacy issue is covered by Kennedy-Kasselbaum, otherwise known as HIPAA! :)

The ACLU is seeking FOIA in the United States District Court Western District Of New York to reveal the names.  ;D

Ralph Turner

I thought that the falling out-of-bounds timeout was not recognized this year.

Please help me.  The official recognized the technical even tho' there were none left.

Had Wooster had a time out, and he fell out of bounds/lost possession because of the rule change, would Wooster have lost the ball and been charged with the timeout?

Pat Coleman

I wish more schools in this league took D3hoops.com seriously. Seven schools have yet to cast a D3hoops.com All-Region ballot. Doesn't bode well for the conference's representation.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

division3hoops

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 12, 2007, 08:48:01 PM
I thought that the falling out-of-bounds timeout was not recognized this year.

Please help me.  The official recognized the technical even tho' there were none left.

Had Wooster had a time out, and he fell out of bounds/lost possession because of the rule change, would Wooster have lost the ball and been charged with the timeout?

Not sure what you are saying here???
Wabash was falling out of bounds and called a time-out but had none left to call.  They were granted the time-out (sort of, players were off the floor due to deliberation)because by the time the refs realized they didn't have any left, the players were already off of the floor.  There was deliberation of what to do and Wabash was charged with a technical.  From what I remember, Wooster shot the free-throws but was not awarded possession after them.  The ball went back to Wabash.

ScotsFan

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 12, 2007, 08:48:01 PM
I thought that the falling out-of-bounds timeout was not recognized this year.
Yeah, that was the screwy part of that whole scenario.  The technical was awarded to Wooster because Wabash called a timeout when they had none remaining.  I had forgotton about the rule change stating that you could no longer call a timeout when falling out of bounds to save possession.  In that case, Wooster should have been awarded the ball as well due to Wabash losing the ball out of bounds.  Oh well, it didn't cost Wooster the game or anything.  At least the officials got the technical right which iced the game for the Scots in that game.

division3hoops

Quote from: ScotsFan on March 13, 2007, 09:07:12 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 12, 2007, 08:48:01 PM
I thought that the falling out-of-bounds timeout was not recognized this year.
Yeah, that was the screwy part of that whole scenario.  The technical was awarded to Wooster because Wabash called a timeout when they had none remaining.  I had forgotton about the rule change stating that you could no longer call a timeout when falling out of bounds to save possession.  In that case, Wooster should have been awarded the ball as well due to Wabash losing the ball out of bounds.  Oh well, it didn't cost Wooster the game or anything.  At least the officials got the technical right which iced the game for the Scots in that game.

From my undestanding, you can still fall out of bounds and call a time-out.  What you CAN'T do is jump out of bounds and call a time-out.  I thought both feet had to be on the floor and that it would still be recognized.  Pat or anyone else?  Is this the ruling?

ScotsFan

division3hoops,

You are correct.  You have to have control of the ball and both feet in bounds to call a timeout as you're falling out of bounds  (kind of like a sideline reception in the NFL).  I wasn't at the Wabash game in Crawfordsville, but from the radio broadcast, it sounded as if the Wabash player jumped to save the ball and called timeout in the air.  Like I said, I wasn't there, so maybe he did have control while callling timeout before falling out of bounds.

division3hoops

ScotsFan -
I was at the game and never thought that the player didn't have control of the ball or both feet on the ground. I remember some people yelling about not being able to call time-out when falling out of bounds and I also remember sitting there disagreeing with them because I was pretty sure both of the players feet were on the ground and that he did have control.  I think a lot of people were confused about the new rule.
I agreed completely with the ruling the officals made.