What would the discussion be?

 

Seriously? Lol. Why conference then?

 

I'm out on that.

Seriously? Lol. Why conference then? I'm out on that.

It tells me you don't understand. The calls were already made. The only convo is the R saying how they were proceeding. It's not a debate.

It's a discussion with 2 sides, right?

 

Simply put, it was the R's call to make. It was still in his primary.

So you were in the doorway by Scotts bench with LA?

 

No chance you or the ref read lips, let alone heard anything, with Ohmers back to the floor facing the doors

 

You win champ. It's really not worth the time. Ohmer is a great kid and I love watching him play! I'm moving on to the rest of the game.

It tells me you don't understand. The calls were already made. The only convo is the R saying how they were proceeding. It's not a debate.

 

I understand completely. There were only 2 officials in the conversation, how do you know the R was involved

You win champ. It's really not worth the time. Ohmer is a great kid and I love watching him play! I'm moving on to the rest of the game.

 

Not trying to win anything. But saying you heard something you weren't near is wrong

Glad to see some passion for Scott hoops and a Scott thread. After watching Dixie boat-race them at NKU I don't even recall seeing a thread for the game.

 

Sounds like this game wasn't dull.

Rules haven't changed…if you notice the finer points of the game, Carr only stood and moved down his bench to substitute or during dead ball to substitute. He was reminded of the seat belt rule and complied, only up when he was subbing.

 

While I saw Carr stand up to substitute, I also saw him (on more than one occasion) stand up and challenge calls made by officials...after he had been assessed a T. I guessed you missed that finer point of the game.

If you do a BGP search of "blarge" you'll often find a post by me saying something along the lines of the following.

 

Officials pre-game this play and always say "hold your whistle a second so we don't both come out with something different." Officials KNOW it's a bad look. However, sometimes in the heat of the moment it happens. It's NOT GOOD.

 

So let's move past your belief that I'm somehow defending officials.

 

Now let's move to the question I asked you a couple of times regarding a better solution.

 

You and many others think one guy should just simply overrule the other. How? Who? Why?

 

Let's assume that was allowed last night in this game.

 

Baseline guy says to trail or center official "I know what you think you saw but I'm overriding it and going with the block and awarding the basket."

 

What explanation are you giving to Coach Russell? "Sorry, coach. I didn't see what I thought I saw." Come on. Coach Russell isn't going to be happy with that. He'd be LESS happy with it then the blarge and Coach Carr would be as well.

 

You THINK the baseline official had the best view. Why? As one who has been on the floor I can tell you the baseline guy can be partially blocked by another player. The baseline guy may also not be able to tell if the defensive player was moving forward at the time of contact.

 

It's a myth to think that one position always has the best view of a particular play. Simply not true.

 

This double foul is the best solution for a bad situation. Call it a "bail out" but it's the only fair solution IMO.

Clyde, really appreciate your knowledge of the game, and understand the logic. However, my head says this is not a fair solution. The blarge ruling treats it as if is a neutral play, didn't happen add a foul to each player. In reality Scott was harmed in wiping out the AndOne, and a foul is given to both players. Seems like a fairer treatment would give Scott AndOne, Campbell's ball with each player given a foul. Rule change needed?????

I've seen Scott a few times. I don't think they're disciplined enough to win the big games in the 10th.

Clyde' date=' really appreciate your knowledge of the game, and understand the logic. However, my head says this is not a fair solution. The blarge ruling treats it as if is a neutral play, didn't happen add a foul to each player. In reality Scott was harmed in wiping out the AndOne, and a foul is given to both players. Seems like a fairer treatment would give Scott AndOne, Campbell's ball with each player given a foul. Rule change needed?????[/quote']

 

What type of foul would you give to the offensive player?

So you were in the doorway by Scotts bench with LA?

 

No chance you or the ref read lips, let alone heard anything, with Ohmers back to the floor facing the doors

 

Uhhh, no….you got it all wrong. I do know who was standing over there though...

While I saw Carr stand up to substitute, I also saw him (on more than one occasion) stand up and challenge calls made by officials...after he had been assessed a T. I guessed you missed that finer point of the game.

 

He doesn't lose his ability to communicate and preventive officiating doesn't typically bear out you would apply excess penalty for questions. This would include standing to ask a question and then sitting back down…. If you noticed, he was reminded of his requirement by one of the officials….

Uhhh, no….you got it all wrong. I do know who was standing over there though...

 

Didn't know you knew me?

 

I was joined shortly after the T by several others

What type of foul would you give to the offensive player?

This is where rule change would be needed. One ref calls block, so AndOne is invoked. 2nd ref calls charge, rule change in case of blarge would not wave off bucket and foul, but would award foul to both and ball to defense.

 

If you wave off AndOne as it now is, the penalty is favorably beneficial to D. Just doesn't seem equitable when refs disagree over call. IMO