Duke @ Florida State
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
Its a tough job. Probably the hardest sport of any to officiate. Its not perfect, nor will it ever be. Its not consistent....and it never will be. But its nowhere near as bad as some people think. I've tried to explain many of times why some contact is called...some isn't. Some is due to bad officiating...some is do to the contact not having the same impact. As an official you have a split second to decide such. It ain't as easy as posting a still pic on here, and asking----"How do you miss that".
As for the Zion play. Its one thing to say it goes uncalled, opposed to saying, "it gets missed". IMO, saying it goes uncalled is insinuating its seen,but ignored. A "poke to the eye" is a play that can easily be missed. It's a play with minimal contact....that usually happens very quickly, and usually occurs during a scrum for a loose ball, rebound, etc, etc..In other words, its not a play that sticks out. Those type of plays are hard to see as an official. I have missed that myself, quite a bit. Its just tough to pick up sometimes. And usually its a play that you don't happened, until after it happens. Its then to late to make a call.
A play like Zion gets missed, Denniden. That is inevitable in a game as fast, and physical as college basketball has become. But it goes "uncalled" b/c its missed. Not b/c its ignored.
Officiating CBB is a job that cannot be described. Its something that unless you've done it, you just have no idea how difficult it can be.
@IUfanBorden
I have a question about this hook and hold. The whole thing is absurd. It should just be a foul. Against UNC the other day there was a clear one that seemed unquestoinable. The announcers seemed to think so. Everyone except the officials who looked at it. He clearly hooked him and held him down as he jumped. There was no question.
Then, in the UT game a guy didn't even hook the guy but both dudes just sort of boxed each other out and then called it flagrant. Then a few minutes later a UT guy was grabbed and held back and they looked at it and called it common.
Please say this is going away next year. It is absurd.
I have a question about this hook and hold. The whole thing is absurd. It should just be a foul. Against UNC the other day there was a clear one that seemed unquestoinable. The announcers seemed to think so. Everyone except the officials who looked at it. He clearly hooked him and held him down as he jumped. There was no question.
Then, in the UT game a guy didn't even hook the guy but both dudes just sort of boxed each other out and then called it flagrant. Then a few minutes later a UT guy was grabbed and held back and they looked at it and called it common.
Please say this is going away next year. It is absurd.
His punctuation isn't much to write home about, either.
The "hook and hold" to me is a good thought. Its a rule with good intention. Its just poorly written, and IMO, not an easy rule/play to interpret. Its design to prevent the OFFENSE from trying to deceive the official, that the DEFENSE has committed a foul. I mean, you can say that about a lot of "fouls". Thing is, this particular foul can carry a F1/F2 penalty. To me, that's the bad part of the rule. I don't like a rule that carries such a penalty, with so much room for interpretation. Here is the rule:
Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm in an attempt to deceive the official into believing the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul
This tactic, most often employed by an offensive player (but not always), occurs when the offensive player hooks an arm under or over the defensive player’s arm and continues to move forward, giving the appearance of a defensive foul. Officials must see the entire play and ensure that the defense is not unfairly penalized
You see the rule nowhere says INTENTIONAL. It does imply it. But to me, that isn't good enough. That's why the call is so inconsistent. I think the rule needs to say, "intentionally". If it did, it would give us officials some "wiggle" room. I could then tell a coach---"Well, I didn't think it was intentional". But I cannot. The rule doesn't allow me that option. Not how I'm reading anyways...And not how coaches are interpreting it either. When you have a rule such as this---it needs to be exact. Just calling it,"illegal contact" isn't enough.
I like the intent of the rule. I just don't like how the rule handcuffs officials. To me a good start of fixing the rule, would just keep at a common foul, unless you feel the play was intentional. As in, through replay you can clearly see the player intentionally doing this.
Nit sure how the rule will stand for next year. I will tell you this---I will vote against it.
Note: I saw both plays in the Tennessee game. To me, that's a perfect example of what I just said.
Yeah, I hear you. I see what you are saying about deception as well. Didn't know that was the main reason for the flagrant. In the Tennessee game there is no way any reasonable person would look at the call on Fulkerson and think there was any attempt to deceive anyone of anything. Yet they called it anyway. It tells me they have no idea what the rule is supposed to be. This just isn't acceptable for anyone.
Meh, its not that.....Its just its so poorly written. It leaves to much judgement for an official. One might see it as F1....one may not...Other may see it as an F2. Replay official may see it different. When you could possibly have 4 different opinions, there is no way you are going to get a consistent call.
Its a good intention rule. Just piss poorly executed.
That was the only way I could figure you could possibly have so many Likes Received. Can't be for your basketball posts.
find a crossword puzzle, don't engage.I’m sitting in a waiting room, so figured why not?
Similar threads
