Refs punished from WSU vs Ill. St. game

[ShockerPrez]

And that suprises you? How much did you think D1 basketball refs where paid?

50 bucks and a comp to a buffet?

[shocktheheart]

50 bucks and a comp to a buffet?

Couldn't find a real "solid" link, but it looks like the top conferences pay between $1600-$2000 a game and one website says the top officials have their airfare and hotel paid for as well.

[SubGod22]

So in two of the last three games we have had:
- An IL State player being ejected after receiving two Technical fouls, one for targeting a WSU players grapes
- An IL State player receiving a Flagrant 1 foul after giving a WSU player the "flying round house kick of death"
- An IL State Assistant Coach following our guys to their locker room cussing them out and having to be restrained by security.

and the MVC feels the most important issue that needed to be addressed was that the refs sent the wrong WSU player to the line to shoot?

The Valley office has also said they're looking into the after game "issues".

They're being reprimanded for making a big mistake that shouldn't have been very confusing in allowing the wrong player to shoot. The flagrant 1 & 2 aren't little known rules to college officials. I'm pretty sure they're very aware of the rule and how it's supposed to be implemented. If it were a goof on a more obscure subject of officiating, one that rarely, if ever, is seen, I'm sure the MVC wouldn't come down on them much if at all.

And honestly, when Muller was complaining about it, the ref, Hall I believe, probably should have stopped things and went to confer with the other two just to make sure.

I find it funny how some of you want and expect officials to be 100% accurate all the time and then blow something like this off as not a huge deal. Who knows what Cotton would have done at the line? He has been shooting better, but there is over a 20% difference on the stat sheet from the guy that should have shot and the guy that did shoot.

[Aargh]

Some things I find interesting from the reprimand. The Valley has reviewed the game and the reprimand is for who shot the throws. Not whether a flagrant shoulc have been called. Now the Valley officially agrees with about every news and sports reporting service - in fact about everybody in the nation who's not an IlSU fan, that the flagrant was the correct call.

One comment I read from a referee was that if the fouled player is injured and can't shoot, then the coach can choose a player to shoot, and that it's not necessary to remove the "injured" player from the game. And that "If a coach tells me the player is hurt, then that player is hurt. They don't pay me enough to make medical diagnoses". This group of officials isn't the only one that would allow a different shooter in that situation.

I suspect some of these rules might get cleaned up a bit during the off season.

[Cdizzle]

The Valley office has also said they're looking into the after game "issues".

They're being reprimanded for making a big mistake that shouldn't have been very confusing in allowing the wrong player to shoot. The flagrant 1 & 2 aren't little known rules to college officials. I'm pretty sure they're very aware of the rule and how it's supposed to be implemented. If it were a goof on a more obscure subject of officiating, one that rarely, if ever, is seen, I'm sure the MVC wouldn't come down on them much if at all.

And honestly, when Muller was complaining about it, the ref, Hall I believe, probably should have stopped things and went to confer with the other two just to make sure.

I find it funny how some of you want and expect officials to be 100% accurate all the time and then blow something like this off as not a huge deal. Who knows what Cotton would have done at the line? He has been shooting better, but there is over a 20% difference on the stat sheet from the guy that should have shot and the guy that did shoot.

I think people just have trouble getting too upset about the wrong foul shooter being sent to the line when the entire play was called incorrectly, and entirely in the opposing teams favor, from the start. Anyone willing to complain about Cle shooting FT's instead of Cotton is free to do so when they are willing to admit 11 seconds, a WSU personal foul, and 2 IlSU points should not have occurred.

For the record, I don't have a problem with the reprimand. Though I do think it's odd it's about a technicality and not the horrifically blown call.

[SubGod22]

Some things I find interesting from the reprimand. The Valley has reviewed the game and the reprimand is for who shot the throws. Not whether a flagrant shoulc have been called. Now the Valley officially agrees with about every news and sports reporting service - in fact about everybody in the nation who's not an IlSU fan, that the flagrant was the correct call.

One comment I read from a referee was that if the fouled player is injured and can't shoot, then the coach can choose a player to shoot, and that it's not necessary to remove the "injured" player from the game. And that "If a coach tells me the player is hurt, then that player is hurt. They don't pay me enough to make medical diagnoses". This group of officials isn't the only one that would allow a different shooter in that situation.

I suspect some of these rules might get cleaned up a bit during the off season.

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.

[SubGod22]

I think people just have trouble getting too upset about the wrong foul shooter being sent to the line when the entire play was called incorrectly, and entirely in the opposing teams favor, from the start. Anyone willing to complain about Cle shooting FT's instead of Cotton is free to do so when they are willing to admit 11 seconds, a WSU personal foul, and 2 IlSU points should not have occurred.

For the record, I don't have a problem with the reprimand. Though I do think it's odd it's about a technicality and not the horrifically blown call.

It should have been called initially, but after that point, everything up until the wrong shooter was handled properly. And to be honest, the way it went down may have been beneficial to us.

[Cdizzle]

It should have been called initially, but after that point, everything up until the wrong shooter was handled properly. And to be honest, the way it went down may have been beneficial to us.

Agree to agree. There were two wrongs, as we've both pointed out. Only one is being addressed in the reprimand.

[moshock]

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.

[Cdizzle]

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.

Indeed. The next time one of our players gets T'd up for "taunting" I'm going to lose it.

[SubGod22]

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.

Except the first is a judgement call. The second is black and white.

[Kung Wu]

It should have been called initially, but after that point, everything up until the wrong shooter was handled properly. And to be honest, the way it went down may have been beneficial to us.

If the referees considered it Unsporting, then they could have assessed a technical foul on top of the Flagrant 1. And the Unsporting clause specifically calls out, but does not limit, Fighting (Section 4.26) as an example where assessing a technical is a reasonable decision. Then Unsporting section gives the referees the ability to call a Flagrant 1 as a technical without having to eject a player by issuing a Flagrant 2, if the penalty is more severe than a Flagrant 1, but not worthy of ejection -- which actually fits this situation to a tee. And it allows the offended team to choose who their shooter is. The problem is, the referees have not come out and said that was the basis for their decision, and so it probably wasn't -- even though the end result actually is the right result (in my mind).

In other words, a Flagrant 2 isn't completely out of line here based on the play, but the punishment of an automatic ejection IS out of line. So the best compromise is to consider a Flagrant 1 and Unsporting.

Whether you agree or disagree, that's one hell of a tool to have in your toolbox as a referee.

[SubGod22]

If the referees considered it Unsporting, then they could have assessed a technical foul on top of the Flagrant 1. And the Unsporting clause specifically calls out, but does not limit, Fighting (Section 4.26) as an example where assessing a technical is a reasonable decision. Then Unsporting section gives the referees the ability to call a Flagrant 1 as a technical without having to eject a player by issuing a Flagrant 2, if the penalty is more severe than a Flagrant 1, but not worthy of ejection -- which actually fits this situation to a tee. And it allows the offended team to choose who their shooter is. The problem is, the referees have not come out and said that was the basis for their decision, and so it probably wasn't -- even though the end result actually is the right result (in my mind).

In other words, a Flagrant 2 isn't completely out of line here based on the play, but the punishment of an automatic ejection IS out of line. So the best compromise is to consider a Flagrant 1 and Unsporting.

Whether you agree or disagree, that's one hell of a tool to have in your toolbox as a referee.

I sometimes wish we officials had a few more tools to use. It's one reason the Federation has tweaked a few rules/calls the past few years because the punishment was too severe in the minds of officials so some things wouldn't be called. They changed/reduced the punishment and now some of those calls are actually called more.

[Rosewood]

Maybe we can get through this next game without the valley having to review the refs.

[WuHu]

Are you on drugs? No matter what anyone thinks of last nights incident, Jackie Carmichael has been nothing but a class guy since he arrived in Normal. He's a very good player. A big, strong, athletic guy who plays the game the right way. One lapse in judgement, a slit second judgement at that, does not make him a horrible guy and shouldn't cause anyone to start making stuff up him.

You can say all you want about Wilkens after the display last year, but JC shouldn't be lumped in with him.

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."

BTW- I will add that if the situation were reversed and Tekel did this to Carmichael I would expect Marshall to pull him from the game and suspend him. There is simply no excuse for this regardless of who did it.