menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Richmond hit with 3 Ts in the last :05
Page: 1 of 1
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 8:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
What a way to lose a tourney game.
Last Edited: 3/14/2013 8:10:27 PM by Pataskala
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 8:12 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Those refs are going to get a vacation.
lovebobcat
General User
L
Member Since: 12/23/2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 548
person
mail
lovebobcat
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 9:14 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Not that anyone's probably counting (but myself), but that hurts a little since Richmond counts as OU's best win. Should we win the MAC Tournament, we'll have to hope we do so over Akron (rather than Kent), because we otherwise might not have any wins over a school in the top 85 or so of the RPI.

Not that Richmond was likely to move up much, unless it had won another game or two this week...
GraffZ06
General User
Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 2,436
mail
GraffZ06
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 9:35 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I was listening to the end of this Charlotte-Richmond game on the local Dayton radio station because Dayton-Butler was up next and they were doing their pre-game from courtside. The Dayton radio crew was beside themselves about how literally ridiculous the ending was. They basically stopped their pre-game and just did a play-by-play of the last minute or so. Charlotte had given up and put in their scrubs...only to win by hitting something like 12 free throws in the last 10 seconds?

I know the Richmond coach finally had enough and got double tech'd and ejected. What a disaster. It was so bad the entire crowd in Brooklyn (most likely fairly neutral) was audibly booing the entire last 5 minutes or so of the game.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 9:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF wrote:expand_more
Those refs are going to get a vacation.


reading the article it seems like a few of those techs are automatic by rule. Earlier vacation if they ignore the rule book. Coach just got his out of frustration.

Salient point that Richmond chose to foul such an bad 3 ball shooting team. I would usually foul on that situation but not sure if the team shot that badly if I ould elect to follow common wisdom
medler
General User
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Post Count: 197
mail
medler
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 9:42 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Factoid: Over/Under?
130 1/2

JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 9:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
reading the article it seems like a few of those techs are automatic by rule. Earlier vacation if they ignore the rule book. Coach just got his out of frustration.


True, though the original foul call on the free throw was borderline. The intentional call was unfathomable.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 3/14/2013 10:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Just wondering but if they call a foul on that dead ball a technical why don't they call a technical when someone fouls before a ball is inbounded? 
athena
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 710
mail
athena
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 7:21 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Sounds like Bo was officiating.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,655
person
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 9:51 AM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
Those refs are going to get a vacation.


reading the article it seems like a few of those techs are automatic by rule. Earlier vacation if they ignore the rule book. Coach just got his out of frustration.

Salient point that Richmond chose to foul such an bad 3 ball shooting team. I would usually foul on that situation but not sure if the team shot that badly if I ould elect to follow common wisdom


Charlotte was basically putting on a clinic in how to attack a match up zone. They were getting nothing but layups and shots in the paint, so they really had no need to shoot the 3. In that situiation, I'm with you. I was at the game, and they kept flashing a stat about how Charlotte hadn't made a 3. If I'm Mooney, I'm gonna make them make one in that situation. 

That said, I get why Mooney flipped out, and I hate that sort of call. Henry got the inbound pass just beyond half court, and as the U of R player went to wrap him up, began a half court heave. Awarding 3 shots in that situation doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the rule. 
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 11:45 AM
settings_applications edit_note
athena wrote:expand_more
Sounds like Bo was officiating.


No, but we might want to watch out for these guys in the future:

Officials: Ken Clark, Bill Mccarthy, Jeff Janosik
RPKirtland
General User
RPK
Member Since: 10/14/2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Count: 233
person
mail
RPKirtland
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 12:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I'm always a fan of Virginia schools, and I've gone to see VCU-Richmond games the last couple of years. This cut deep.
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
General User
BSNNTO
Member Since: 2/4/2005
Post Count: 3,057
person
mail
Brian Smith (No, not that one)
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 12:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
athena wrote:expand_more
Sounds like Bo was officiating.


I was thinking Mickey Gordon from "Forget Paris"
Eagle66
General User
E66
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 1,329
person
mail
Eagle66
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 2:09 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Those refs are going to get a vacation.


reading the article it seems like a few of those techs are automatic by rule. Earlier vacation if they ignore the rule book. Coach just got his out of frustration.

Salient point that Richmond chose to foul such an bad 3 ball shooting team. I would usually foul on that situation but not sure if the team shot that badly if I ould elect to follow common wisdom


Charlotte was basically putting on a clinic in how to attack a match up zone. They were getting nothing but layups and shots in the paint, so they really had no need to shoot the 3. In that situiation, I'm with you. I was at the game, and they kept flashing a stat about how Charlotte hadn't made a 3. If I'm Mooney, I'm gonna make them make one in that situation.

That said, I get why Mooney flipped out, and I hate that sort of call. Henry got the inbound pass just beyond half court, and as the U of R player went to wrap him up, began a half court heave. Awarding 3 shots in that situation doesn't seem in line with the spirit of the rule.
I believe they called it flagrant as well so three and the ball.
Gangsta Pete
General User
Member Since: 3/21/2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post Count: 62
mail
Gangsta Pete
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 2:52 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OUVan wrote:expand_more
Just wondering but if they call a foul on that dead ball a technical why don't they call a technical when someone fouls before a ball is inbounded? 


If the player inbounding the ball has possession of the ball, it is considered a live ball, even though the clock isn't running. 
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/15/2013 5:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Gangsta Pete wrote:expand_more
Just wondering but if they call a foul on that dead ball a technical why don't they call a technical when someone fouls before a ball is inbounded? 


If the player inbounding the ball has possession of the ball, it is considered a live ball, even though the clock isn't running. 


that was the interpretation I got. Once the ref hands the ball to the inbounder it is in play. Dead ball is after the whistle before the ball is put in play. If the ref has not handed the ball to the inbounder and kid pushes , shoves or pulls a douchey move it is a dad ball foul and results in an auto tech.

For the record BO spent the day in Chicago calling the Michigan game. Would ot surprise me at all to see him and Scirotto on the Final.
Eagle66
General User
E66
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 1,329
person
mail
Eagle66
mail
Posted: 3/16/2013 12:40 AM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
Just wondering but if they call a foul on that dead ball a technical why don't they call a technical when someone fouls before a ball is inbounded?


If the player inbounding the ball has possession of the ball, it is considered a live ball, even though the clock isn't running.


that was the interpretation I got. Once the ref hands the ball to the inbounder it is in play. Dead ball is after the whistle before the ball is put in play. If the ref has not handed the ball to the inbounder and kid pushes , shoves or pulls a douchey move it is a dad ball foul and results in an auto tech.

For the record BO spent the day in Chicago calling the Michigan game. Would ot surprise me at all to see him and Scirotto on the Final.
Up at Buffalo they grabbed Ivo to try and put him on the line before they handed ball to us to inbound. They told Buffalo the ball hadn't been put in play yet and don't call a foul. Guess that should have been a technical too.
bornacatfan
General User
Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,752
mail
bornacatfan
mail
Posted: 3/16/2013 9:57 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Eagle66 wrote:expand_more
Just wondering but if they call a foul on that dead ball a technical why don't they call a technical when someone fouls before a ball is inbounded?


If the player inbounding the ball has possession of the ball, it is considered a live ball, even though the clock isn't running.


that was the interpretation I got. Once the ref hands the ball to the inbounder it is in play. Dead ball is after the whistle before the ball is put in play. If the ref has not handed the ball to the inbounder and kid pushes , shoves or pulls a douchey move it is a dad ball foul and results in an auto tech.

For the record BO spent the day in Chicago calling the Michigan game. Would ot surprise me at all to see him and Scirotto on the Final.


Up at Buffalo they grabbed Ivo to try and put him on the line before they handed ball to us to inbound. They told Buffalo the ball hadn't been put in play yet and don't call a foul. Guess that should have been a technical too.


Depends on the ref. SOme guys do proactive reffing. THey talk to the kids and tell them what is going on or actually clarify rules that kids and coaches may not know the intricacies of....by rule that probably should have been a tech. Depending on maliciousness of the foul they may just say " You can't foul till we put the ball in play". If they throw him down or get really physical I guarantee it becomes a tech. Most really good refs do a LOT of proactive reffing.
Eagle66
General User
E66
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 1,329
person
mail
Eagle66
mail
Posted: 3/16/2013 11:12 AM
settings_applications edit_note
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
Just wondering but if they call a foul on that dead ball a technical why don't they call a technical when someone fouls before a ball is inbounded?


If the player inbounding the ball has possession of the ball, it is considered a live ball, even though the clock isn't running.


that was the interpretation I got. Once the ref hands the ball to the inbounder it is in play. Dead ball is after the whistle before the ball is put in play. If the ref has not handed the ball to the inbounder and kid pushes , shoves or pulls a douchey move it is a dad ball foul and results in an auto tech.

For the record BO spent the day in Chicago calling the Michigan game. Would ot surprise me at all to see him and Scirotto on the Final.


Up at Buffalo they grabbed Ivo to try and put him on the line before they handed ball to us to inbound. They told Buffalo the ball hadn't been put in play yet and don't call a foul. Guess that should have been a technical too.


Depends on the ref. SOme guys do proactive reffing. THey talk to the kids and tell them what is going on or actually clarify rules that kids and coaches may not know the intricacies of....by rule that probably should have been a tech. Depending on maliciousness of the foul they may just say " You can't foul till we put the ball in play". If they throw him down or get really physical I guarantee it becomes a tech. Most really good refs do a LOT of proactive reffing.
They basically put him in a bear hug. I don't have a problem with how they played it out, just didn't know it was a T
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 3/16/2013 4:22 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I'm not 100% familiar with it but at a quick see on replay it looked good.

What borna said about good reffing--you keep the kids informed, you control the game.

It's not only good reffing, it's how good businesses are run....refereeing being the business of those guys in stripes.
Showing Messages: 1 - 20 of 20
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)