Setty brought a lot more than just 10 points to this game. He can handle the ball, is a good rebounder and a great passer. His absence would very likely have made for a different outcome in the finals.

 

Technically, the refs should have had the guts to make the call and it wouldn't have needed to be reviewed.

 

Question, if it was a player from Holmes who had gone onto the floor would the same ruling have been made??? (There were MANY times in the Paintsville and the Lex Cath games when Holmes was fouled VERY hard and they did not react with anything other than stepping up to the free throw line.)

This according to Mike Fields blog on Kentucky.com:

 

"Mason County senior standout Trevor Setty will play in the title game. That’s a relief to the Royals. Mason County’s coaches were told just before 7 p.m. that Setty had been suspended for the finals because of his conduct in the Royals’ semifinals win over Shelby County. With 36.8 seconds left in that game, Mason County’s Ethan King was going in for a layup when he took an intentional foul from the Rockets’ Donovan Johnson. Setty, who was not in the game at that time, came off the bench and was several feet on the court before he was pulled back by a teammate. The referees huddled and decided not to disqualify Setty from the game. Later, however, KHSAA officials decided Setty should have to sit out the finals for leaving the bench. But upon further review, the KHSAA decided that a fight was not going to ensue, and Setty was cleared to play just before the team took the court for warmups."

 

I did not know what the ruling was. Sorry if I upset anybody, I just wondered if you all had heard what the final ruling was. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

If all of this is true(wasn't at the semifinals so don't know), then Setty SHOULD NOT have played in that game. Sounds to me like they bended the rules for Mason Co. in this one. It's not a matter of who won and who still would have won, it's a matter of following the rules. And the rule clearly states if a player leaves the bench and goes onto the floor then that player should be ejected and sit for the next game. Bad decision by the KHSAA IMO but there's nothing that can be done about it now. This opened the door for bad press and references to future incidents like this if they happen.

 

In the end though, Setty played and Mason Co. won. Who knows what would of happened if he didn't but there's no point in dwelling on it.

 

Congrats to Mason Co. on being State Champs! :ylsuper:

So the KHSAA proves again that their rules really arent rules for everyone....

Would Setty have played if they were playing Catholic? :sssh:

If all of this is true(wasn't at the semifinals so don't know), then Setty SHOULD NOT have played in that game. Sounds to me like they bended the rules for Mason Co. in this one. It's not a matter of who won and who still would have won, it's a matter of following the rules. And the rule clearly states if a player leaves the bench and goes onto the floor then that player should be ejected and sit for the next game. Bad decision by the KHSAA IMO but there's nothing that can be done about it now. This opened the door for bad press and references to future incidents like this if they happen.

 

In the end though, Setty played and Mason Co. won. Who knows what would of happened if he didn't but there's no point in dwelling on it.

 

Congrats to Mason Co. on being State Champs! :ylsuper:

 

Agreed

FWIW, Setty wasn't much of a factor against Holmes...

 

Setty wasn't much of a factor versus Holmes, but his presence on the floor is better than having someone else out there. It could have also played with Mason County mentally.

 

If the rules states leaving the bench results in an ejection then he should have been ejected. Refs don't change the rules just because its the state semifinals.

 

Mason was the better team and the the better team won, but could have been different if Setty wouldn't have played.

Setty was called for a technical--for saying something--not for going on the floor.

Setty was called for a technical--for saying something--not for going on the floor.

 

So Mike Fields' blog is wrong?

So Mike Fields' blog is wrong?

 

If what the Setty's said themselves was true then yes.

In normal circumstances in a tourney, you would think that it would have came down to the official's decision on the court. If the officials did not eject him for his actions, whether it was the right call or not, the KHSAA wouldn't suspend a player if he didn't even get ejected from the game with which the infraction occured. The know that the KHSAA could suspend a player for his/her actions on the court after investigating the situation but then again they're there at the state tourney so there would be no need to investigate. But then again, I guess the KHSAA can do whatever it wants. They answer to themselves.

 

I didn't see what happened, I wasn't there but the rule calls for an ejection for leaving the bench. However the officials at state do not have the luxury of instant replay and fans have alot better view of the court. not sure what exactly happened but I wouldn't think not having any guts had anything to do with it. If they thought he left the bench to fight then I'd say they would have ejected him. The officails at that level know that rule, I'm sure. They would have never worked another Sweet 16 if they just ignored a rule by choice. Boucher would have sent them home right after the game never to call another game at Rupp. So, my guess is that they ruled he did not leave. But then again, why the technical? WHo was it on?

Setty was called for a technical--for saying something--not for going on the floor.

 

The PA announcer did say his technical was for "leaving the bench". I was pretty sure I saw that as well.

 

Nothing against him, the argument here is not about him, rather why didn't the KHSAA enforce the rules?

I wish we could stop seeing so much complaining from some Holmes fans. Mason was the better team tonight and that's what matters, end of story.

 

 

What are you talking about? Just because someone says something that may hurt your feelings, doesn't mean their a bitter Holmes fan. I've seen nothing that would suggest that.

In my opinion, they finally got one right. Glad he played, and got to enjoy the great feeling it must be to be a State Champion. Mason may of won without him, but he would of had to live knowing, that he didn't get to play in the biggest game of his life. And if they would of lost without him, he would blame his self. No way did he do anything that bad...Can't even believe they almost sat him.

In my opinion, they finally got one right. Glad he played, and got to enjoy the great feeling it must be to be a State Champion. Mason may of won without him, but he would of had to live knowing, that he didn't get to play in the biggest game of his life. And if they would of lost without him, he would blame his self. No way did he do anything that bad...Can't even believe they almost sat him.

 

:thumb:

If what the Setty's said themselves was true then yes.

 

Really no point in trying to spin this one. The T was for leaving the bench area, and it should have resulted in ejection as well. That's the rule.