ADVERTISEMENT

Worst blown calls you’ve witnessed?

For the millionth time, I have already said UK got a great whistle.. why are people not seeing this...strange to say the least.
For the millionth time, I know this. That is irrelevant. Point is, IF these calls would have went AGAINST UK, that "great whistle" comment would not be in your vocab. UK could have gotten a great whistle all night---But had those calls went the other way?

yeah, you know the routine. So stop with the bullshit.
 
You're simply not worth having this discussion with.

Intent of the rule is very important here. YOu just cannot ignore that.

Deviating from your normal shooting habit is KEY, dumb ass. If it is exaggerated---well, that's an issue. If you have a "hitch" that turns into a fukin full leg kick, well, I mean.....


You cannot possibly be this fukin ignorant.
Cool. Thanks for the discussion.
 
I am not arguing the rule. And anytime a player sticks a leg out, whether it is part of his shooting motion or not part of his shooting motion, it is still intentional on their part.

If I were a coach, I would tell my players to now make sticking their leg out part of their normal shooting motion. That way it wil be a foul on the defense every time according to what you indicated above.
Let me try and explain this a tad better.....

For ME---I pat attention to shooters. What they do. How they land---their form. Do they have a "hitch", do they have a "leg kick" each time. Is it consistent. If they do, I take note of this. Now lets say that player deviates from that....He extends his leg much further, or differently. Now it gives me information. Gives me info. And gives me a rason to think---"He did this with the INTENT to draw contact."

If a guy is doing the same exact thing, within reason, not an exgarration , etc.....Otherwise, using some common sense---Understanding, "how mnay dudes stuck their leg way out, to shoot, etc..."

So, on this play. Taylor has a hitch with his shot. Its nothing crazy. Nothing you'd feel, "hes doing this to gain an advantage, or trying to draw contact." So you note this. Now you ask---"Was what he done just NOW, any different than what he has done all day"? If you feel he did, and it was with the intent to create contact----Fine. If you do not---possibly get a defensive foul.

For me?---I don't think it was enough of either. I would have left it alone. Why? Two reasons, with one outcome---It did not effect the play. Is this contact I really need to get? No. Why? because it didn't garner an advantage for either player. So play on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
Intent DOES MATTER. Otherwise, its a defensive foul. This is not hard, brother.

A)---If the official feels he intentionally kicked his leg out, to draw contact, its an offensive foul.

B)---If the official does not feel he intentiaonally kicked his leg out, and his action was that of his normal shot---its a defensive foul.

So yes---INTENT absolutely matters.

For me? I think its to "iffy" to mess with. I have NOTHING here. Play on. Why? Because it’s borderline as ****. If I make that call(either way), I wamt it to be OBVIOUS as ****. And it was not. So for me, I got NOTHING. Play on.
The correct answer is (A)! No way Shep touches the guy if he don’t kick his leg out. It’s pretty simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bert Higginbotha
The correct answer is (A)! No way Shep touches the guy if he don’t kick his leg out. It’s pretty simple.
Not really. Agree no way Shep hits him. But that doesn't answer the wuestion of intent. Taylor does that. AS does Dillingham.

No call IMO. It wasn't anything egregious..And he(Taylor) certainly didn't deviate from how he had shot all day.

Be honest---What your thoughts be had that call went against UK---Not a defensive foul. But say UK hit a three, but was called for an offensive foul, on that same, exact play? I know how I would react had this happened to IU.

Intent.....Look at LJ when he shot FT's at UNLV. Intent is important.
 
Not really. Agree no way Shep hits him. But that doesn't answer the wuestion of intent. Taylor does that. AS does Dillingham.

No call IMO. It wasn't anything egregious..And he(Taylor) certainly didn't deviate from how he had shot all day.

Be honest---What your thoughts be had that call went against UK---Not a defensive foul. But say UK hit a three, but was called for an offensive foul, on that same, exact play? I know how I would react had this happened to IU.

Intent.....Look at LJ when he shot FT's at UNLV. Intent is important.
Dilly should’ve been called for it as well. IMO it’s like tripping a player. It’s also like flipping and players running down the floor with a defender beside them and throwing their head back. It should be called everytime imo.
 
Dilly should’ve been called for it as well. IMO it’s like tripping a player. It’s also like flipping and players running down the floor with a defender beside them and throwing their head back. It should be called everytime imo.
I don't agree UNLESS its a huge deviation from his NORMAL shot. Dilly and Taylor have unorthodoxed shots. Cant penalized them for it---Just like you cant penalized the defense for it. If they had called Dilly for an offensive foul, the call would have been just as bad as it was vs TAMU.

Fans want the game called "by the law", that is, until it is. I had a game last night. Fans in the front row say---"Biy they are letting them play"---His buddy agree's and says, " I like it..." Fast forward to second half...."Call the damn foul man....Later on....."COme on, let them play...

Which is it? Had Jeffersonville Friday night. Sherron Wilkerson, former IU player coaches them. He says to me, "Krice, ya'll have the worst job, Everytime you blow your whistle, somebody is gonna be mad..."

No truer words have ever been spoken. Fans want this or that, that is until it pertains to their team.
 
The unintentional leg kickout is nonsense. Go look at his highlights and you'll see that's not part of his normal shooting routine.
Seems he had a slight hitch. Maybe not. Either way, its a ridiculous call. It wasn't anything egregious. And you know as well as I do that had this been againist UK, BBN would be Defcon 4.
 
Seems he had a slight hitch. Maybe not. Either way, its a ridiculous call. It wasn't anything egregious. And you know as well as I do that had this been againist UK, BBN would be Defcon 4.
I don't like the call but it doesn't matter what I think. He kicked out his leg and initiated contact with the defender, which also caused the defender to fall down. Is that not the definition of a foul?



 
I don't like the call but it doesn't matter what I think. He kicked out his leg and initiated contact with the defender, which also caused the defender to fall down. Is that not the definition of a foul?

I don't agree. especially with those videos of him shooting lay-ups. And on a few of his jumpers, you can see that, at times, he led with his left leg/foot.

If the official felt he did so with the sole intent to crete contact....Fine. But I don't think he did

EDIT----Also, WHY? Why would he do that? TAMU is up four. They don't need to score---and certainly didn't need a three. Its not like they were down, needed a three, and hes trying to draw a foul.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. especially with those videos of him shooting lay-ups. And on a few of his jumpers, you can see that, at times, he led with his left leg/foot.

If the official felt he did so with the sole intent to crete contact....Fine. But I don't think he did
Look at his 3 from nearly the same spot on the floor where I linked the video near the 16 second mark. He's straight up and down. That was clearly intentional to kick out.
 
Look at his 3 from nearly the same spot on the floor where I linked the video near the 16 second mark. He's straight up and down. That was clearly intentional to kick out.
I saw that...I also saw to other attempts where led with is left foot, as well.

Why would he do that? TAMU was up 4. Its not like they were down, and hes trying to draw a foul, or something.

Intent.

TBH, I'd love to see this thread if this had been called vs UK
 
I saw that...I also saw to other attempts where led with is left foot, as well.

Why would he do that? TAMU was up 4. Its not like they were down, and hes trying to draw a foul, or something.

Intent.

TBH, I'd love to see this thread if this had been called vs UK
You know you are reaching hard on this, bro. IDK why. He was trying to be sly and draw a "foul" call/flop. It is obvious. Makes no difference who the call was against. Why are you making it about that? We are simply discussing what is a foul and what isn't, by rule.
 
TBH, I
You know you are reaching hard on this, bro. IDK why. Makes no difference who the call was against. Why are you making it about that? We are simply discussing what is a foul and what isn't, by rule.
How am I reaching? Look if the official felt that was intentional, cool. I don't. ANd if he did, well UK had better hope he doesn't call anymore UK games----Or be thankful he didn't decide to get Dilly, or DJ on the same call.

What is the rule? Intent. Again, I don't think he intentionally stuck his leg out. If you do, fine. I don't.

Why am I making it about that? Is that a serious question?

Its a call that was not needed. If there is a no call there, its not even being discussed.
 
TBH, I

How am I reaching? Look if the official felt that was intentional, cool. I don't. ANd if he did, well UK had better hope he doesn't call anymore UK games----Or be thankful he didn't decide to get Dilly, or DJ on the same call.

What is the rule? Intent. Again, I don't think he intentionally stuck his leg out. If you do, fine. I don't.

Why am I making it about that? Is that a serious question?

Its a call that was not needed. If there is a no call there, its not even being discussed.
I have said I don't agree with it, but the intent is painfully obvious. If you can't see that perhaps you should hang up the zebra suit. ;)
 
I have said I don't agree with it, but the intent is painfully obvious. If you can't see that perhaps you should hang up the zebra suit. ;)
Naaah, I'm good. This could get called to infinity. I understand intent. If this were a situation where TAMU was down three, and desparate, etc...I could see him trying to draw a foul. But not the case. They were up four. If he misses----still up four. So understand game situation. Game management here. Let the play process, and ask---"Is there intent---is he trying to draw a foul....But why would he?

Its not egregious. It created nothing. There was no advantage. Him "kicking his leg", didn't keep Shep from being able to defend him. Just play on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithPlusOne
Naaah, I'm good. This could get called to infinity. I understand intent. If this were a situation where TAMU was down three, and desparate, etc...I could see him trying to draw a foul. But not the case. They were up four. If he misses----still up four. So understand game situation. Game management here. Let the play process, and ask---"Is there intent---is he trying to draw a foul....But why would he?

Its not egregious. It created nothing. There was no advantage. Him "kicking his leg", didn't keep Shep from being able to defend him. Just play on.
Players do dumb shit all the time. Who knows why they do it. Why do defenders even bother to defend 3 point shooters in the final seconds when they are up by 4? How many times do those guys draw fouls? Sometimes they make the 3 and 1 to send it to OT. Total brain fart. Again, I don't like that call, but at the same time it wasn't just based on nothing as many seem to think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lurkeraspect84
I don't like the call but it doesn't matter what I think. He kicked out his leg and initiated contact with the defender, which also caused the defender to fall down. Is that not the definition of a foul?



Thanks for posting that. Radford hadn't shot like that all game. He knew what he was doing...thankfully Sheppard didn't get hurt, he the last guy UK could afford to lose.
 
Players do dumb shit all the time. Who knows why they do it. Why do defenders even bother to defend 3 point shooters in the final seconds when they are up by 4? How many times do those guys draw fouls? Sometimes they make the 3 and 1 to send it to OT. Total brain fart. Again, I don't like that call, but at the same time it wasn't just based on nothing as many seem to think.
About the GT. Rule needs changed. If they were allowed to review it then---then UK would have gotten the ball. But not because of the arrow, but because they had possession.
 
About the GT. Rule needs changed. If they were allowed to review it then---then UK would have gotten the ball. But not because of the arrow, but because they had possession.
Why is the rule to wait until the next timeout? That's insane. To save time? They already suck at that. And when it comes at the expense of the wrong call it really changes things.
 
Why is the rule to wait until the next timeout? That's insane. To save time? They already suck at that. And when it comes at the expense of the wrong call it really changes things.
. Same way with reviewing 2/3 point shot. Explanation I got---"not to interrupt the flow of the game..." Which is fukin comical. Its ok to stop the game for 3 minutes to put .1 tenth of a second on the clock...or to make sure right foul, etc.....But naaaaaah----cant do that for BI/GT.

Stupid.
 
. Same way with reviewing 2/3 point shot. Explanation I got---"not to interrupt the flow of the game..." Which is fukin comical. Its ok to stop the game for 3 minutes to put .1 tenth of a second on the clock...or to make sure right foul, etc.....But naaaaaah----cant do that for BI/GT.

Stupid.
Right, it is so bizarre! Especially when you could be playing extended time before the correct call is made and points are either awarded or taken off the board well after the fact. Could alter the way teams play based on what they think the score is when it's late in close games. Anything that can potentially alter the score needs to be reviewed and resolved immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUfanBorden
She knows who da fukin boss is...
I enjoy talking to you on the phone, because you are a really good listener,
I mean I can rant and you wait to make your response.
Now let me talk to your wonderful wife and, (you know me) I will change your life. 🤣
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IUfanBorden
Intent DOES MATTER. Otherwise, its a defensive foul. This is not hard, brother.

A)---If the official feels he intentionally kicked his leg out, to draw contact, its an offensive foul.

B)---If the official does not feel he intentiaonally kicked his leg out, and his action was that of his normal shot---its a defensive foul.

So yes---INTENT absolutely matters.

For me? I think its to "iffy" to mess with. I have NOTHING here. Play on. Why? Because its borderline as ****. If I make that call(either way), I wamt it to be OBVIOUS as ****. And it was not. So for me, I got NOTHING. Play on.
Do you have the specific rule # for this?
 
Do you have the specific rule # for this?
It in case book. I'd have to look it up. But the reading is close to....."If not considered part of the shot, and deemed with the inetent to create contact....----It can be an offensive foul.

You are opening up a can of worms with this call. And marrying you and your crew to a call that you really don't want to have. Simialr to illegal screens, "hand checking(hold), etc. Its the part of the game that the fans just don't get/understand. Micromanaging a basketball game is a good way to shoot 500 Ft's. Understanding what contact is needed, i.e. good play calling, is one of the hardest crafts to learn as an official. I have been doing this for over 20 years....11+ at the college level as well. Learning and applying LGP, and understanding "what to get",i.e. good play calling, is a craft I am still trying to perfect to this day.
 
Do you have the specific rule # for this?
No. There is no "eritten", specific detail. None that I have seen. I don't keep up as much as I once did; I rarely work CBB anymore. And if I do, its usually NAIA. During our meetings, this has been discussed, and thoroughly..There needs to be intent. Otherwise, what parameters do we have? this type of play/call usually sticks out, and is obvious. ANd it had better be.

But look----You think the official called this because...………………..Why? Well simple---he felt there was intent with TAMU kid extending his leg, to draw contact. If he felt it was merely part of his shot, he could have called a foul on Shep. Or done what I felt should have been done.

Nothing.
 
It in case book. I'd have to look it up. But the reading is close to....."If not considered part of the shot, and deemed with the inetent to create contact....----It can be an offensive foul.

You are opening up a can of worms with this call. And marrying you and your crew to a call that you really don't want to have. Simialr to illegal screens, "hand checking(hold), etc. Its the part of the game that the fans just don't get/understand. Micromanaging a basketball game is a good way to shoot 500 Ft's. Understanding what contact is needed, i.e. good play calling, is one of the hardest crafts to learn as an official. I have been doing this for over 20 years....11+ at the college level as well. Learning and applying LGP, and understanding "what to get",i.e. good play calling, is a craft I am still trying to perfect to this day.
If the kick out is difficult to call then at least we should stop rewarding it with a foul call.

The rules for brush by are liberal enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithPlusOne
If the kick out is difficult to call then at least we should stop rewarding it with a foul call.

The rules for brush by are liberal enough?
I agree.

Offciaitng is difficult enough without adding to it. I leave this alone. For me, it just has to be obvious. And TBH, I see no reason to ever call this...much less call it as an offensive foul.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithPlusOne
Seems he had a slight hitch. Maybe not. Either way, its a ridiculous call. It wasn't anything egregious. And you know as well as I do that had this been againist UK, BBN would be Defcon 4.
Wrong! A few of us has said it should’ve been called on Dilly and we lost the game. Seems like you’re reaching man. The dude stuck his leg out and tripped a player. It was obvious. If you don’t see that how have you made it as a ref?
 
Wrong! A few of us has said it should’ve been called on Dilly and we lost the game. Seems like you’re reaching man. The dude stuck his leg out and tripped a player. It was obvious. If you don’t see that how have you made it as a ref?
Sure......Should have been, and was, are two different things. If those three calls happened vs UK, dude there would be 400+ fukin pages talking about how bad the refs are, how they hate UK----etc, etc...But since the calls went your way, well they(calls) were obvious...plain as day man. Heck we even said Dilly shuld have been called for it; which is dumb as ****.

He stuck out his leg to trip a player? Why? To keep him from getting the ball out of the net? Quit being so obtuse dude.

How I made it as a ref? Buy not making shit calls like that at the end of games.
 
Wrong! A few of us has said it should’ve been called on Dilly and we lost the game. Seems like you’re reaching man. The dude stuck his leg out and tripped a player. It was obvious. If you don’t see that how have you made it as a ref?
Be honst here...How would have reacted if that call went against UK? Not them calling a foul on Shep, but that was shep shooting, and they called it offensive?

I know how I would have reacted. Broken TV, remote and an injured dog. It was that bad.
 
Sure......Should have been, and was, are two different things. If those three calls happened vs UK, dude there would be 400+ fukin pages talking about how bad the refs are, how they hate UK----etc, etc...But since the calls went your way, well they(calls) were obvious...plain as day man. Heck we even said Dilly shuld have been called for it; which is dumb as ****.

He stuck out his leg to trip a player? Why? To keep him from getting the ball out of the net? Quit being so obtuse dude.

How I made it as a ref? Buy not making shit calls like that at the end of games.

Be honst here...How would have reacted if that call went against UK? Not them calling a foul on Shep, but that was shep shooting, and they called it offensive?

I know how I would have reacted. Broken TV, remote and an injured dog. It was that bad.
Well since I’m saying that Dilly should’ve been called for the exact same thing I’m guessing I wouldn’t have reacted like you want me to say I would. I think it should’ve been a foul on both players. I think Dilly got away with one. Myself along with several other UK fans felt like UK got a favorable whistle that game. I have even said that two or three of the rebounds that Ugo got should’ve been over the back calls against him. I’m not one of those fans that thinks the refs are out to get UK and I’ll say if I think a call is bs no matter if it’s against UK or the opposing team. In this case, the ref got it right.
 
When was the last time anyone has seen a 3-second call in game?
I see it called every now and then, but it's rare. It happens virtually every possession though (most people don't seem to realize how fast 3 seconds goes by or they don't give a shit). But if refs were busy counting down every time an offensive player put a foot in the lane they wouldn't be worth a shit catching anything else going on. So, when it is called, it seems like it's only when it's painfully obvious (meaning it has been waaaay longer than 3 seconds).
 
uconn-flop.gif
 
ADVERTISEMENT