Refs punished from WSU vs Ill. St. game

[ShockTalk]

1) It was deliberate, not a "lapse in judgment" against Cotton who did a nice defensive job on Carmichael. It is that simple.
2) He then ran over Hall on the last play was that too a lapse in judgment?
3) The ISU coach basically disputes that it was even a foul which is a clear indication that he encourages that kind of play which is exactly what ISU is known for and did in last year’s MVC tournament.

Remember if he doesn't drop a front kick on Cotton none of this is an issue but then to follow it up with the charge, the statements made by Muller and not even one indication of an apology or even owning up to the "mistake" I find completely unacceptable and nowhere close to the definition of a "class act."

1) Was Cotton guarding Carmichael?
2) No, it was desperation.
3) He was not even the coach for Ill St last year. What does "basically disputes" mean. Not saying anything neither agrees or disagrees.

Mueller may not have said anything, Carmichael has. As I posted in another thread:

"Some people on campus were calling me 'Jackie Chan Carmichael' If it wasn't such a bad memory, I might keep it," Carmichael said on Monday morning." "If I was someone who wasn't at the game in our fanbase, I guess I would think it was intentional. I'm looking at it from my point of view, though, and I didn't mean it. I went up for a rebound like I usually do." "Our team fought hard and I had one really crucial play that cost us."

Doesn't sound like excuses to me.

[shock]

I didn't get to watch the game - I read somewhere that Tyler Brown hung on the rim and fist pumped - shouldn't a T have been called for that ? If yes, then we should have had the opportunity to shoot 1 or 2 more free throws. IMO, that's just as important as sending the wrong player to the line for the F1.

Yeah he jammed it straight on and swung around like a regular follow through after a hard dunk. He fist pumped with one hand while letting go of the rim with his other. Had he not fist pumped, I would not have had an issue with it.

[SubGod22]

1) It was deliberate, not a "lapse in judgment" against Cotton who did a nice defensive job on Carmichael. It is that simple.
2) He then ran over Hall on the last play was that too a lapse in judgment?
3) The ISU coach basically disputes that it was even a foul which is a clear indication that he encourages that kind of play which is exactly what ISU is known for and did in last year’s MVC tournament.

Remember if he doesn't drop a front kick on Cotton none of this is an issue but then to follow it up with the charge, the statements made by Muller and not even one indication of an apology or even owning up to the "mistake" I find completely unacceptable and nowhere close to the definition of a "class act."

1. Something deliberate CAN be a lapse in judgement. Its not like he had this planned.
2. So anyone who commits a charge is a thug? You can add Cotton, DWill, Armstead and Hall to your list then as they've all committed multiple charges this year. Fred got called for one in this game too. WTF?
3. No it doesn't. He said he didn't feel it was flagrant because it seems to be his belief that a flagrant requires intent. And intent can be debated on this play. And this coach wasn't at ISU last year so what happened then has NOTHING to do with the current coaching staff.

And Cotton never guarded Carmichael. So one of the core parts of your argument is moot.

[WuHu]

1. Something deliberate CAN be a lapse in judgement. Its not like he had this planned.
2. So anyone who commits a charge is a thug? You can add Cotton, DWill, Armstead and Hall to your list then as they've all committed multiple charges this year. Fred got called for one in this game too. WTF?
3. No it doesn't. He said he didn't feel it was flagrant because it seems to be his belief that a flagrant requires intent. And intent can be debated on this play. And this coach wasn't at ISU last year so what happened then has NOTHING to do with the current coaching staff.

And Cotton never guarded Carmichael. So one of the core parts of your argument is moot.

It was deliberate and there was intent. He looked at Cotton, followed through on the kick and made no attempt to pull it back not to mention that in order for him to actually hit Cotton he had to make a conscious effort to raise his leg to do it on his way down. That's thugish. Then after receiving an F1 levels Hall. Strike 2.
As for defending the ISU program the evidence speaks for itself.

[SubGod22]

It's been shown elsewhere that Jackie, for whatever reason, often has his legs kick out one way or another on rebounds. I don't think it's a conscious effort to strike anyone. If it is, he's sucked at it for four years. He does kick his legs out and this one happened to hit somebody. That doesn't make it deliberate or preplanned. It doesn't make anyone a thug. And why you're convinced a charge is dirty is beyond me. Late game, he's trying to score and probably hoping to draw a foul.

There is NOTHING thuggish about Jackie Carmichael. And I feel even better about saying that after reading his words the day after about it all. He's a class guy. Much classier than you.

[ShockerFever]

To be fair, even if it was intentional on Carmichael's part, I don't see him admitting to it in an interview.

[vancedave56]

If the player is injured, he has to leave the court. He can come back in when he's "better", but if he remains on the court, he shoots.

If this is the case, nobody was "on the court" when the free throws were shot - only the shooter and the officials; there was no rebound to get. I'm not sure how it would apply in this case.
He came back in after he "was better" - when live play resumed. ??

[jdmee]

It's been shown elsewhere that Jackie, for whatever reason, often has his legs kick out one way or another on rebounds. I don't think it's a conscious effort to strike anyone. If it is, he's sucked at it for four years. He does kick his legs out and this one happened to hit somebody. That doesn't make it deliberate or preplanned. It doesn't make anyone a thug. And why you're convinced a charge is dirty is beyond me. Late game, he's trying to score and probably hoping to draw a foul.

There is NOTHING thuggish about Jackie Carmichael. And I feel even better about saying that after reading his words the day after about it all. He's a class guy. Much classier than you.

http://www.redbirdfan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=73509#p73509

However, non of the other pictures does Jackie kick his leg as much as he did with Cotton. Do I think he did this with intent? No, However intent has nothing to do with a flagrant foul call. Do I think he is a classy guy? Don't know the guy, however how classy a guy is has nothing to do with a flagrant foul call.

I do think that as a commissioner of a conference when 2 of the last 3 games between two teams has had 1 guy ejected and another where it is debatable if he should have been ejected, I would want to let it be known that this is unacceptable. Letting this continue can just lead to escalation of the issue.

I have no issues with the refs being reprimanded for the wrong free throw shooter shooting the free throws, nor how they handled the whole kick issue during the game. Nor do I have an issue with the "charge" no call.

[AdamCC]

If the refs had made the correct call in the first place, even if Tekele missed both free throws, we would've been down 5 after the FTs. Basically, two wrong calls made it right.

[jdmee]

If the refs had made the correct call in the first place, even if Tekele missed both free throws, we would've been down 5 after the FTs. Basically, two wrong calls made it right.

Two wrong calls are two wrong calls. I have no idea why the kick wasn't called in the first place, I use to be a stroke judge for my kids swim league, never reffed basketball. However, as a stroke judge you are trying to look at 50 different things at once. You miss somethings, somethings look funny but you are not sure what you saw you don't call. You only call what you see. However, that is why this is a reviewable play, they reviewed it and got it right.

[SubGod22]

If this is the case, nobody was "on the court" when the free throws were shot - only the shooter and the officials; there was no rebound to get. I'm not sure how it would apply in this case.
He came back in after he "was better" - when live play resumed. ??

False. There were 10 players on the court along with the three officials when the FTs took place. If they weren't, that's nine technical fouls :)

They were all gathered around halfcourt, but still on the court. If Cotton had left the game due to injury, he wouldn't have been able to return until either 3G used a timeout in order to "buy" his way back into the game or wait for the next dead ball.

[pogo]

Two wrong calls are two wrong calls. I have no idea why the kick wasn't called in the first place, I use to be a stroke judge for my kids swim league, never reffed basketball. However, as a stroke judge you are trying to look at 50 different things at once. You miss somethings, somethings look funny but you are not sure what you saw you don't call. You only call what you see. However, that is why this is a reviewable play, they reviewed it and got it right.

I dated a girl that was a stroke judge in college.

[Cdizzle]

False. There were 10 players on the court along with the three officials when the FTs took place. If they weren't, that's nine technical fouls :)

They were all gathered around halfcourt, but still on the court. If Cotton had left the game due to injury, he wouldn't have been able to return until either 3G used a timeout in order to "buy" his way back into the game or wait for the next dead ball.

I think this is an interesting case, given that 11s of time actually did elapse between the Flagrant foul and the foul on Williams. So there was both a dead ball and elapsed time between the time Cotton was fouled and when he would be checking back in. This is why both retroactive fouls and time travel get a little sketchy when you sit and think about them.

[SubGod22]

http://www.redbirdfan.net/forum/view...p=73509#p73509

However, non of the other pictures does Jackie kick his leg as much as he did with Cotton. Do I think he did this with intent? No, However intent has nothing to do with a flagrant foul call. Do I think he is a classy guy? Don't know the guy, however how classy a guy is has nothing to do with a flagrant foul call.

Maybe not, but it's not like we haven't seen him kick his legs out before. It's something I've noticed in the past and never thought much of it. And as I've said elsewhere, intent has nothing to do with a flagrant. Nor does his class play a part in that. His class plays a part in the demonizing of the young man by posters like WuHu who want to call him a thug because of ONE unfortunate incident. Jackie didn't kick at with intent to harm Cotton. Leg was out and he made contact. How much was intent can be debated. One angle does look like he may have tried to pull back but too late but he did not extend to kick to cause harm. At least in my opinion.

I do think that as a commissioner of a conference when 2 of the last 3 games between two teams has had 1 guy ejected and another where it is debatable if he should have been ejected, I would want to let it be known that this is unacceptable. Letting this continue can just lead to escalation of the issue.

I don't think anyone would argue with this. Things have been heated and intense. Two good teams with passionate fanbases and both matchup well on the court from a size and athleticism standpoint. The MVC is looking into what happened after the game as well and I'm sure things will be addressed. Maybe not publically, but both sides will hear something.

I have no issues with the refs being reprimanded for the wrong free throw shooter shooting the free throws, nor how they handled the whole kick issue during the game. Nor do I have an issue with the "charge" no call.

:good:

[SubGod22]

I think this is an interesting case, given that 11s of time actually did elapse between the Flagrant foul and the foul on Williams. So there was both a dead ball and elapsed time between the time Cotton was fouled and when he would be checking back in. This is why both retroactive fouls and time travel get a little sketchy when you sit and think about them.

It's not from the point of the injury, but from the deadball in which he was declared injured and removed from the game.