Karl Hess dismissed by ACC...

[shockerfanmas]

Wow...lot's of stuff here...sorry you two feel put upon for your profession .....actually do not 'bash' refs per se...hard job...tried it once to see if I would want to do it after my coaching career....not for me...always appreciated and thanked good jobs by refs...

I Have in fact met Miles once, and watched one game from somewhat afar...not any more of a 'barker' than any other major coach, in my opinion....I'm assuming, Ref, YOU have done his games since you seem to know what he is...and fanmas, the incident of restraint was with Tom Crean...who DOESN'T have a problem with Crean? I would guess the majority of Miles' peers have a great relationship with him...

Hope your games go better, and you feel more appreciated..it IS a tough job, but one you CHOOSE to do...

Thanks for the return chuckles.

Thanks for the post, well thought out. Admittedly I was not in a great frame of mind last night, lots of stuff going on, so maybe I came off as a bit bitchy. I will say it's not fair for me to judge Miles by one incident, Shockref may have actually dealt with him personally. I don't know what to think about Crean.

You're right, officiating is a tough profession, and yes, most of the time we choose to. Unfortunately there are those times from whatever reason we have no choice. The extra income is keeping me afloat right now, but it is starting to feel more like an actual job, for me at least. But I'll give you credit for trying it. Have a good day sir

[jdshock]

The individuals on this board who have been refs seem to be the individuals that are the quickest to defend calls that a lot of on this board are opposed to. I don't know if that is significant or not, but it certainly could indicate I need to do a better job removing my yellow-colored glasses when watching basketball games. [It could also be some huge conspiracy and all refs are contrarians that just love to annoy shocker fans and every single one of them is out to get me!]

This might sound like I'm being rude, but I'm not trying to be. I am interested to know what level of basketball shockerfanmas and shock ref have reffed. I suppose it's probably not important, I'm just interested. If you're the NBA's head of referee development of something, I will know never to argue you with you.

[shockerfanmas]

The individuals on this board who have been refs seem to be the individuals that are the quickest to defend calls that a lot of on this board are opposed to. I don't know if that is significant or not, but it certainly could indicate I need to do a better job removing my yellow-colored glasses when watching basketball games. [It could also be some huge conspiracy and all refs are contrarians that just love to annoy shocker fans and every single one of them is out to get me!]

This might sound like I'm being rude, but I'm not trying to be. I am interested to know what level of basketball shockerfanmas and shock ref have reffed. I suppose it's probably not important, I'm just interested. If you're the NBA's head of referee development of something, I will know never to argue you with you.

Not rude at all jdshock, you're asking a question and you want to be informed. Nothing wrong with that. You're a fan, as am I, so I completely understand about the yellow colored or rose colored glasses. I also sometimes find myself cussing out the officials, and if you'll notice, I haven't been too much of a fan at all of the crews that were used in the last couple Shocker games. I think a lot of it is, and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way.. a lot of fans are just uneducated. They think they know the rules and what should be called and what shouldn't, but the truth is it's not so cut and dry. Just because there is contact does not mean it is a foul. There's no such thing as over the back or a reach, things like that. Sure, from a fans eye, I can see where some of the calls might be disagreed with when from an officials eye they look right. Heck, even officials tend to disagree amongst themselves over calls.

As for your interest in what level I've officiated, I won't share that information publicly for obvious reason. However, if you want to pm me, I'd be more than happy to tell you. Have a good day.

[jdshock]

Not rude at all jdshock, you're asking a question and you want to be informed. Nothing wrong with that. You're a fan, as am I, so I completely understand about the yellow colored or rose colored glasses. I also sometimes find myself cussing out the officials, and if you'll notice, I haven't been too much of a fan at all of the crews that were used in the last couple Shocker games. I think a lot of it is, and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way.. a lot of fans are just uneducated. They think they know the rules and what should be called and what shouldn't, but the truth is it's not so cut and dry. Just because there is contact does not mean it is a foul. There's no such thing as over the back or a reach, things like that. Sure, from a fans eye, I can see where some of the calls might be disagreed with when from an officials eye they look right. Heck, even officials tend to disagree amongst themselves over calls.

As for your interest in what level I've officiated, I won't share that information publicly for obvious reason. However, if you want to pm me, I'd be more than happy to tell you. Have a good day.

Refs are expected to start the game perfectly and only get better from there.

I'm willing to say that's an unreasonable expectation. It's tough to know for sure if a call was a charge or a block, it's tough to know if a player touched the arm or the ball, heck... it's even tough to know if there's a tie ball when two players are huddled around a basketball.

Is it so much to ask that the refs just settle any confusion in favor of the shocks??

[wsushox1]

Does not change the fact that he is correct.

I do not know if this was sarcastic or toungue-in-cheek. I never mentioned anything about the validity of his statement.

[im4wsu]

Not rude at all jdshock, you're asking a question and you want to be informed. Nothing wrong with that. You're a fan, as am I, so I completely understand about the yellow colored or rose colored glasses. I also sometimes find myself cussing out the officials, and if you'll notice, I haven't been too much of a fan at all of the crews that were used in the last couple Shocker games. I think a lot of it is, and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way.. a lot of fans are just uneducated. They think they know the rules and what should be called and what shouldn't, but the truth is it's not so cut and dry. Just because there is contact does not mean it is a foul. There's no such thing as over the back or a reach, things like that. Sure, from a fans eye, I can see where some of the calls might be disagreed with when from an officials eye they look right. Heck, even officials tend to disagree amongst themselves over calls.

As for your interest in what level I've officiated, I won't share that information publicly for obvious reason. However, if you want to pm me, I'd be more than happy to tell you. Have a good day.

I understand why officials might be peeved at fans using "over the back" or "reaching in" when those words are not in the rulebook. I get peeved at people who cannot grasp that Team A cannot loose the game to Team B. We all use words as abbreviations for longer descriptions, such as "Darius appeared to have good rebounding position and reached up but was bodied out of the way by the opposing team's player who secured the rebound after that action." God forbid we need to write message boards that way; God forbid I attempte4d to correct the misuse of "lose" and "loose" and "there," "they're," and "their," either.

One serous question, as it has been mentioned 2-3 times in the last several games. What constitutes "change of possession" for purposes of resetting the shot clock? It was clear, at least to me, that the clock should not have reset in last night's game when TC almost made a miraculous pick but knocked the ball out of bounds -- the official's agreed. In the previous game, I believe there was a question of possession, but it was explained that the player had not re-established his inbounds presence and therefore there was no change of possession and subsequent palming, but instead a simple out-of-bounds stoppage.

What I am looking at occurred in the game prior to that, I believe, or perhaps the Drake game. WSU shot and missed, the opposing player picked up the loose ball with two hands, bounced the ball to the floor and attempted to secure the ball with two hands as it rebounded off the floor, touching it with at least one of the hands before it was knocked away by WSU, who then regained possession. The shot clock was not reset but continued running as it had been when WSU previously had the ball. Similar to the call in last night's Dallas game which depended on what constitutes a "football play," what does the official look for to determine a "change in possession"?

[shockerfanmas]

I understand why officials might be peeved at fans using "over the back" or "reaching in" when those words are not in the rulebook. I get peeved at people who cannot grasp that Team A cannot loose the game to Team B. We all use words as abbreviations for longer descriptions, such as "Darius appeared to have good rebounding position and reached up but was bodied out of the way by the opposing team's player who secured the rebound after that action." God forbid we need to write message boards that way; God forbid I attempte4d to correct the misuse of "lose" and "loose" and "there," "they're," and "their," either.

One serous question, as it has been mentioned 2-3 times in the last several games. What constitutes "change of possession" for purposes of resetting the shot clock? It was clear, at least to me, that the clock should not have reset in last night's game when TC almost made a miraculous pick but knocked the ball out of bounds -- the official's agreed. In the previous game, I believe there was a question of possession, but it was explained that the player had not re-established his inbounds presence and therefore there was no change of possession and subsequent palming, but instead a simple out-of-bounds stoppage.

What I am looking at occurred in the game prior to that, I believe, or perhaps the Drake game. WSU shot and missed, the opposing player picked up the loose ball with two hands, bounced the ball to the floor and attempted to secure the ball with two hands as it rebounded off the floor, touching it with at least one of the hands before it was knocked away by WSU, who then regained possession. The shot clock was not reset but continued running as it had been when WSU previously had the ball. Similar to the call in last night's Dallas game which depended on what constitutes a "football play," what does the official look for to determine a "change in possession"?

I get where you're going in your first paragraph as far as wording. You're correct that most people say over the back or reaching in, either because they don't know any better or because they just don't know what is to call it. The misnomer is that over the back and reaching in are in the rule book. In your case, I'm more than willing to do my best to educate fans that want to learn. There is a way to communicate without actually using the words "over the back". 99.9% of the time, it is just simply called a push, or you can get away with saying he was "on his back", even though on the back isn't in the rulebook either, it is more commonly accepted than over the back. However, different officials might have different opinions on your first paragraph, just telling you mine.

As for your question, to be quite frank without going into specifics, I very rarely work games that involve a shot clock. I have ran the shot clock during a few college games before. What I am always told by the officials is to be patient, and if you're not sure whether or not it should be a reset, ask. The Cotton situation last night was correct, there never really was a true change of possession. As for the other one that was called a carry (or palming, either term works), I myself would have though that would have been a reset. I'm not sure which game your other situation happened in, I think it was the Drake game, but I remember the play you're talking about. Just my opinion, but the biggest thing officials should look for in change of possession as far as shot clock purposes would be control. Did the opposing team have total control of the basketball for a good couple seconds. I don't remember exactly how quick the grab, dribble, and knockaway happened, if it was all instantaneous or if there was a second or 2 delay between the pick up of the loose ball and the dribble. If there was a delay, then I would have had control and change of possession. If it all happened pretty much in the same instant, I can see where the officials would have ruled that there wasn't control long enough to warrant a change of possession. But again, since I don't deal much with shot clocks, this is a tough one for me to give a great answer to. I hope that helped, at least somewhat.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

Just acknowledging the fact that his ass is correct. That is all.