Drake loses on a T to Weber State.

[SFL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tydVlhvubk&feature=related

[ShockTalk]

Where are our resident refs on this? Are you guys just sitting back getting a big chuckle on this? Of course, if I were you, I probably would.

This is like arguing about the number of teeth in a horse's mouth without opening its mouth. No one here has presented the actual rules pertaining to this. Is there anything in the rule book actually defining a spiked ball and then (in black and white :lol: ) say if there is a spiked ball, such and such must be the only resulting call. If, I would unknowingly presume, this is not the case and it is a judgement call, is the judgement whether it was a spiked ball or the intent. IMO, judgement calls probably deal with a good amount of intent. The possible fact that 99% of the time when a player spikes a ball it's because he's PO'd at the ref's call, mad at an opposing player, taunts, or delays the game is of no matter. Any judgement call should pertain to that particular situation only. Yes, I agree the player should not have done it, but I can also understand the excitement of the moment as well. Personally, the player running around like a chicken with its head cut off was more taunting or celebratory.

That's just my position unless the rules say otherwise. It is the responsibility of the ref to use common sense if it is to be a judgement call that will almost undoubtably decide the outcome of the game. If they felt there were infractions due to the spiked ball, I have no problem with that. They're the refs, they get paid to make that decision. All I'm saying, from what I viewed, that was not the case.

[SB Shock]

That's just my position unless the rules say otherwise. It is the responsibility of the ref to use common sense if it is to be a judgement call that will almost undoubtably decide the outcome of the game. If they felt there were infractions due to the spiked ball, I have no problem with that. They're the refs, they get paid to make that decision. All I'm saying, from what I viewed, that was not the case.

So you think a ref should never make a judgment call that might affect the outcome of the game? It is obvious they thought "there were infractions due to the spiked ball" - they called a T on it.

Did you watch the game? There were several instances where Phelps was beyond the line (well outside the coaching box almost to the 3pt arc) yelling at the refs that could have easily drawn a technical.

My suspicion is they were tire of the Drake act and had no more patience and the Drake player stupidly gave the refs a reason to slap them with a technical foul.

[ShockTalk]

That's just my position unless the rules say otherwise. It is the responsibility of the ref to use common sense if it is to be a judgement call that will almost undoubtably decide the outcome of the game. If they felt there were infractions due to the spiked ball, I have no problem with that. They're the refs, they get paid to make that decision. All I'm saying, from what I viewed, that was not the case.

So you think a ref should never make a judgment call that might affect the outcome of the game? It is obvious they thought "there were infractions due to the spiked ball" - they called a T on it.

Did you watch the game? There were several instances where Phelps was beyond the line (well outside the coaching box almost to the 3pt arc) yelling at the refs that could have easily drawn a technical.

My suspicion is they were tire of the Drake act and had no more patience and the Drake player stupidly gave the refs a reason to slap them with a technical foul.

Come on SB. Did I really say that? No, they should weigh the actual act and, if being a judgement call, its infraction on the spirit of the rules if it leaves them that discretion. No, I didn't watch the game. I have better things to do than watch the Geese play BB (like be on SN :D ).

First, I thought someone would back up their assertion with the actual rules, facts. Second, if DU and Phelps should have gotten a T earlier, then they should have pulled the trigger then.

By your description, the refs were not only inconsistant, but bias as well. They had their chance to get back at DU and did it when it had the biggest impact on the outcome of the game. Personally, I don't think that was the case. Although, they could have set the tone earlier in the game, thereby, letting everyone know they were not giving any more wiggle room to those kind of actions.

Hey, outside of hurting the Valley's RPI, I really didn't care. It's just the way I viewed that one particular situation.

[SubGod22]

Generally speaking, I've always been told that anything that clears the rim is pretty automatic. No matter what the intent of the "spike" was. I don't know what had gone on before this play either so it's hard to say if other things were involved as well with the call. It looks harmless but the ball did get plenty of air.

No matter what, it was stupid of the Drake player to even do.

[WSUwatcher]

Bozos

Stupid thing to do, no question. But also not a basketball play that had anything to do with the action -- and thus, a ridiculous call by a zebra who decided to make the outcome about himself and his authority rather than the players and the actual play of the game.

Good thing I'm not a supervisor of officials for a conference where that guy works -- he'd come up short on income this year.

[ShockTalk]

Generally speaking, I've always been told that anything that clears the rim is pretty automatic. No matter what the intent of the "spike" was. I don't know what had gone on before this play either so it's hard to say if other things were involved as well with the call. It looks harmless but the ball did get plenty of air.

No matter what, it was stupid of the Drake player to even do.

OK. I agree the player did a stupid thing and I've said all along that he should have been T'd up if there was an actual, or judged to be, violation.

From what I gather from your post, there is no rule addressing this, but that this spiked ball thing is an assumed bad thing (which it is almost all the time) and refs are justified in calling a T on it. But since there is no rule addressing it (I looked through the 2010-2011 NCAA Rule Book and couldn't find anything on it), the ref is also justified in not calling it if he feels there was no bad intent. In other words, the other team would have no grounds for a complaint if this was the ref's judgement. Granted, I don't know if any warnings had been made or if there was something else involved not seen on that video. To me, in the situation of the game and how the kid acted, this was no more a bad intent to the other team than a player pulling on his jersey or thumping his chest, probably less. In this situation, I can't think of any other possible reason to call it.

[swish1]

Generally speaking, I've always been told that anything that clears the rim is pretty automatic. No matter what the intent of the "spike" was. I don't know what had gone on before this play either so it's hard to say if other things were involved as well with the call. It looks harmless but the ball did get plenty of air.

No matter what, it was stupid of the Drake player to even do.

OK. I agree the player did a stupid thing and I've said all along that he should have been T'd up if there was an actual, or judged to be, violation.

From what I gather from your post, there is no rule addressing this, but that this spiked ball thing is an assumed bad thing (which it is almost all the time) and refs are justified in calling a T on it. But since there is no rule addressing it (I looked through the 2010-2011 NCAA Rule Book and couldn't find anything on it), the ref is also justified in not calling it if he feels there was no bad intent. In other words, the other team would have no grounds for a complaint if this was the ref's judgement. Granted, I don't know if any warnings had been made or if there was something else involved not seen on that video. To me, in the situation of the game and how the kid acted, this was no more a bad intent to the other team than a player pulling on his jersey or thumping his chest, probably less. In this situation, I can't think of any other possible reason to call it.

as a player i was always told to not let it go over your head. so basically if you were mad at a call you slam the ball down but you also catch it on your own.

[SB Shock]

I can't think of any other possible reason to call it.

[SubGod22]

Generally speaking, I've always been told that anything that clears the rim is pretty automatic. No matter what the intent of the "spike" was. I don't know what had gone on before this play either so it's hard to say if other things were involved as well with the call. It looks harmless but the ball did get plenty of air.

No matter what, it was stupid of the Drake player to even do.

OK. I agree the player did a stupid thing and I've said all along that he should have been T'd up if there was an actual, or judged to be, violation.

From what I gather from your post, there is no rule addressing this, but that this spiked ball thing is an assumed bad thing (which it is almost all the time) and refs are justified in calling a T on it. But since there is no rule addressing it (I looked through the 2010-2011 NCAA Rule Book and couldn't find anything on it), the ref is also justified in not calling it if he feels there was no bad intent. In other words, the other team would have no grounds for a complaint if this was the ref's judgement. Granted, I don't know if any warnings had been made or if there was something else involved not seen on that video. To me, in the situation of the game and how the kid acted, this was no more a bad intent to the other team than a player pulling on his jersey or thumping his chest, probably less. In this situation, I can't think of any other possible reason to call it.

When a number of people see it and start pointing it out it also makes it more difficult to ignore. There were a number of people pointing and saying something. I know I've casually warned players in certain cases where it wasn't bad enough to be called out by others but it was borderline. I simply tell them I could have given a T and to watch themselves. Again, this ball got plenty of air and was noticed by a lot of people.

As for Drake fans, if they don't want the official to decide the game they should make sure their players don't go about doing stupid things.

[pinstripers]

Why is that so hard to understand? If you don't want to be called for a T for slamming the ball down, then DON'T SLAM THE FRICKING BALL DOWN!

[rjl]

Why is that so hard to understand? If you don't want to be called for a T for slamming the ball down, then DON'T SLAM THE FRICKING BALL DOWN!

Interesting.

In other contexts, you seem quite willing to question rules, laws, and regulations.

Yet here, you see no problem with a strict enforcement of a rule that (a) might not even exist, and (b) if it does exist, one whose application in this situation seems questionable at best.

It's obvious that, since there is no hard line rule, there cannot be any hard line application. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[pinstripers]

Why on earth would you give the zebras the opportunity to take the game from you?

[ShockTalk]

Why on earth would you give the zebras the opportunity to take the game from you?

I don't disagree that the kid made a stupid mistake. I do disagree with potentially unwritten rules (I don't know, but no one has shown otherwise) being allowed to be called and determining the outcome of a game, particularly when such act, in this case, appeared to not be egregious or, as SB pointed out, to possibly get back at a coach the ref may be PO'd with but didn't assess a T to earlier (I view that as bias). What's so hard about adding a spiked ball as always a T to the rule book, unless the rules committee wants to allow some judgement in determining intent by the ref? This is not a new happening, address it, and make sure that no one can question the integrity of the refs or make it clear that it is a judgement call so that he doesn't have to call it if he feels it's not warranted. "Well I didn't really want to call it because I thought the kid was just happy and didn't show any unsportsman like conduct, but since everyone calls it, eventhough it's not really a rule, I'm taking the game away from the players". True or not, this is not the way to ref a game.

[pinstripers]

How about, "I know I can get away with this, since it it toward the end of the game"......?