That video doesn't show the mouthing off part. Not enough footage to really say that the tech was justified. I can understand if the tech was for mouthing off. But staring down is really trivial. IMO just looking at your opponent shouldn't be grounds for a tech after making a dunk like that. If you're serious about the game, you always want to keep your eyes on the players and ball, so you can see if there's an opportunity for a defensive play.

If what happened is true, then the kid deserves it. Playing in college hoops means you're given the privilege. You learn manners and you learn sportsmanship. Once you go pro, then all that can be thrown out and you're free to do whatever you want.

>> ^sixshot:

That video doesn't show the mouthing off part. Not enough footage to really say that the tech was justified. I can understand if the tech was for mouthing off. But staring down is really trivial. IMO just looking at your opponent shouldn't be grounds for a tech after making a dunk like that. If you're serious about the game, you always want to keep your eyes on the players and ball, so you can see if there's an opportunity for a defensive play.
If what happened is true, then the kid deserves it. Playing in college hoops means you're given the privilege. You learn manners and you learn sportsmanship. Once you go pro, then all that can be thrown out and you're free to do whatever you want.


The only call that needed to be made in this video was a defensive foul for contact on the player that was dunking. Calling a technical instead on the guy who dunked is insane. Unless there were some very choice words missed in this video the call here looks horrifically like a ref who's taken sides, not an athlete being unsportsmanlike.

Moving this video to mas8705's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^sixshot:
That video doesn't show the mouthing off part. Not enough footage to really say that the tech was justified. I can understand if the tech was for mouthing off. But staring down is really trivial. IMO just looking at your opponent shouldn't be grounds for a tech after making a dunk like that. If you're serious about the game, you always want to keep your eyes on the players and ball, so you can see if there's an opportunity for a defensive play.
If what happened is true, then the kid deserves it. Playing in college hoops means you're given the privilege. You learn manners and you learn sportsmanship. Once you go pro, then all that can be thrown out and you're free to do whatever you want.

The only call that needed to be made in this video was a defensive foul for contact on the player that was dunking. Calling a technical instead on the guy who dunked is insane. Unless there were some very choice words missed in this video the call here looks horrifically like a ref who's taken sides, not an athlete being unsportsmanlike.


You cannot blame the ref for enforcing a rule that exists. That's like blaming a policeman for arresting you when you break the law. He didn't write the laws, he has to enforce them, it's his job.

I'm sorry but no sympathy here...he did it earlier and got a technical, he knew what he did was wrong after that. You either learn or you just repeat your mistake and get an even tougher learning experience.

mas8705 cannot be banned because star accounts are immune to banination - ignoring ban request by kulpims.

>> ^siftbot:

mas8705 cannot be banned because star accounts are immune to banination - ignoring ban request by kulpims.


ROFL!!!!!!!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^sixshot:
That video doesn't show the mouthing off part. Not enough footage to really say that the tech was justified. I can understand if the tech was for mouthing off. But staring down is really trivial. IMO just looking at your opponent shouldn't be grounds for a tech after making a dunk like that. If you're serious about the game, you always want to keep your eyes on the players and ball, so you can see if there's an opportunity for a defensive play.
If what happened is true, then the kid deserves it. Playing in college hoops means you're given the privilege. You learn manners and you learn sportsmanship. Once you go pro, then all that can be thrown out and you're free to do whatever you want.

The only call that needed to be made in this video was a defensive foul for contact on the player that was dunking. Calling a technical instead on the guy who dunked is insane. Unless there were some very choice words missed in this video the call here looks horrifically like a ref who's taken sides, not an athlete being unsportsmanlike.

You cannot blame the ref for enforcing a rule that exists. That's like blaming a policeman for arresting you when you break the law. He didn't write the laws, he has to enforce them, it's his job.
I'm sorry but no sympathy here...he did it earlier and got a technical, he knew what he did was wrong after that. You either learn or you just repeat your mistake and get an even tougher learning experience.


They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.

>> ^bcglorf:


They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.


The defender did not foul at all. The defender was going for the ball.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:

They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.

The defender did not foul at all. The defender was going for the ball.


If there's contact on the players body though it's still a foul. Sure, in practice the refs will let a lot of things slide, especially by the basket. That's exactly my point though, after letting one infraction slide, they go ahead and call an even less significant one.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^curiousity:
>> ^bcglorf:

They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.

The defender did not foul at all. The defender was going for the ball.

If there's contact on the players body though it's still a foul. Sure, in practice the refs will let a lot of things slide, especially by the basket. That's exactly my point though, after letting one infraction slide, they go ahead and call an even less significant one.


Body contact by itself does not necessitate a foul. If the ball is "free" (i.e. not actively possessed by a player), then players from both teams are allow to pursue the ball. In fact, the offensive player runs into the defensive player so it is the offensive player that causes the contact while the defensive player is just seeking to intercept the pass while having a superior position (and if he could have jumped higher and gained possession, it might have been a foul on the offense player if the offense player tried to take the ball away from him.) It was a good no-call by the ref.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^curiousity:
>> ^bcglorf:

They need to enforce all the rules evenly though. The defender fouled the guy while he was dunking, that should have been called first. The ref didn't seem to have a problem overlooking that rule and call. That involved actual physical contact too, but the ref called the foul based of someone giving another player the wrong look. That's pretty sketchy in my book.

The defender did not foul at all. The defender was going for the ball.

If there's contact on the players body though it's still a foul. Sure, in practice the refs will let a lot of things slide, especially by the basket. That's exactly my point though, after letting one infraction slide, they go ahead and call an even less significant one.

Body contact by itself does not necessitate a foul. If the ball is "free" (i.e. not actively possessed by a player), then players from both teams are allow to pursue the ball. In fact, the offensive player runs into the defensive player so it is the offensive player that causes the contact while the defensive player is just seeking to intercept the pass while having a superior position (and if he could have jumped higher and gained possession, it might have been a foul on the offense player if the offense player tried to take the ball away from him.) It was a good no-call by the ref.


You've never played ball before then, have you.

When the offensive player has the ball, any contact is a foul on the defensive player unless the defender has both feet planted on the ground before the offensive player left his own feet. Since both players are jumping and the offensive player is still holding the ball when there is contact there isn't any question what so ever on the call. It's just a call refs often leave alone if the contact is light and doesn't interfere with the shot. That's why on a dunk they'll allow some body contact with no call, but on a 3 point attempt they'll call even a feather touch on the shoe.

>> ^bcglorf:
...snip...


Are you trolling me?

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
...snip...

Are you trolling me?


?

Do you not agree and understand that contact between players is called as a defensive foul unless the defensive player's feet are planted? That is, if both players are in the air and there is contact, it is ALWAYS a defensive foul. The only possible exception being if the offensive player throws a punch or something else to warrant a flagrant call. Even then though, some very hard elbows and knees in that situation still get called against the defender.

Do you really argue any of that? If you do, then yes I do question if you've ever actually played in a competitive game with actual referees.

@bcglorf

You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.

POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.

PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.

Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.

In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.

VIDEO:

When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.

....

On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.

>> ^curiousity:

@bcglorf
You seem angry and disoriented. And unwilling to actually read what I am posting. I think you have decided that you are right and refusing to read to anything contrary. You are trying to undermine an argument to authority multiple times... an argument that I never made (which is funny because I strongly doubt you are a referee at the collegiate level, but of course you can dismiss the referee's call because you disagree with him. Classic.) In addition, you are making an argument about a situation that didn't exist in the video to prove what happened in the video fits your mindset or perhaps you missed a key point that I made before. I will attempt to explain what I meant in more detail.
POSSESSION:
You seem utterly focused on an offensive player with physical possession of the ball. A quick reminder: there are 10 players on the court at a time (normal situations) and one basketball. I'll double-check my math, but that does leave 9 players (4 offensive and 5 defensive) which don't have physical possession of the basketball. There are also cases where the basketball is "free" or not currently in the physical possession of any one player; albeit this is typically a very short time. (e.g. when a shot is rejected and the ball is bouncing before another player picks it up. This also includes passing because during the flight of the basketball, no one is in physical possession of the basketball.) Lastly there is the case where two or more players from opposite teams grab the ball at a very similar time and try to wrestle away possession from the opposing player; if this goes on too long, the referee will call a jump ball where the teams will have a tip off for possession. So we have three states for possession: (1) physically possessed by one player (either holding, dribbling, or releasing a shot/pass); (2) "free"; and (3) short time of struggle before a jump ball is called.
PHYSICAL CONTACT:
Physical contact is actually extremely common in basketball. Posts and forwards are often pushing on each other vying for position. It is also extremely common (in man-to-man defenses) for a defender on the opposite of the basketball to have one hand on a player because he is trying to watch the ball in case he need to offer support and that one hand will let him know if the person they are guarding tries to cut down a lane, etc, etc.
Physical contact with the player who has physical possession of the ball is also very common, but more restricted. Any post or forward that every played competitive basketball outside of grade school will know what I'm talking about. That player posts up, gets the ball, and then tries to maneuver for a shot or pass - during this time there is often physical contact at the post seeks to test if the defensive player is overplaying one side or the other. Obviously hand slapping or elbow strike would be a foul, but make no mistake that there is plenty of physical contact during that exchange. Physical contact with a player with physical possession whom is dribbling happens in a similar fashion. As long as the defensive player is quick enough to get in front of the offensive player, it isn't a foul even if the defensive player is moving a little. The key to this is to be essentially in the spot just before the offensive player tries to go in that direction. If the offensive player is too quick and the defensive player ends up almost "hip-to-hip" then it would be a blocking foul; although typically, the defensive player usually gets called for a hand slap as they realize they are beat and try to smack the ball out from behind.
In a free ball situation, players from both teams have an equal chance to seek possession of the ball. Obviously tripping, striking, holding, and over-aggressive pushing would be called a foul. However, in a point that you adamantly resist acknowledging, during a free ball situation, players from both sides have equal chance to seek possession.
VIDEO:
When the point guard throws up the alley-oop, both the defender and the offensive player jump to grab the ball. Watch the defensive player. He is looking at the ball and going for it, not trying to block or create physical contact with the offensive player. They both jump towards the ball and create incidental contact while going after a free ball. Free ball. Free ball. I think the concept that it was in a "free" state might be important here... Incidental contact is not a foul (especially when going after a free ball which all players have an equal opportunity to seek). Hell, there is a lot of intention contact within basketball that isn't a foul. Obviously the offensive player was able to get it because of the skill of the point guard and because he was expecting it.
....
On a sidenote, I think it is hilarious that you keep trying to turn the argument into one of me not "actually played in a competitive game with actual referees" while not knowing anything about me and while your basic concept ignorance about competitive basketball shines brightly.


Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.

I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

>> ^bcglorf:

Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.
I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.


Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.

Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^bcglorf:
Actually it is my fault for watching the video too few times. After watching it the first couple times I'd stupidly comeback and forgotten that he hadn't driven the lane with ball but was in fact going for the pass. I was wrong.
I'm still against calling a foul over a look, but the contact never needed a call.

Sorry for being a dick in my last comment. I took out a bad night on you. My apologies.
Yeah, I find it hard to justify a technical based on a "stare down" without anything said. The only thing I can think of is the factor combination that the description said that player had already been warned about this and the referee might have felt they were losing control of the game. I've seen referee's make some questionable calls way skewed to being too strict because we were playing a team that we had bad blood with and the emotions were running high.


No worries, I was being bullheaded while stupidly failing to re-watch the video and confirm what I remembered was really what happened. You should have found my comments baffling and crazed.

I agree with refs having discretion in calling a game loose or tight. I even agree with refs recognizing when they've made a bad call and being tougher on the team that benefited from that for another call later just to keep the calls more even. Reffing is terrifically tough, requiring you to do a job were you will make all manner of mistakes or misses and just need to make the right balance of it all to keep things fair and controlled.

My issue is more with the nature of the rule itself. A rule that makes eye contact with your opponent immediately after dunking on them a potentially game ejecting foul seems way out of proportion.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #4911 (supplied by member Fletch) - video declared dead by member ChaosEngine.