All Posts (brobison)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 181 »


 
Re: Concerned about Egypt? You BETTER BE!
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
Do you know if they made every model of vehicle in America get 7 miles more to the gallon we would not be dependent on foreign oil.

Here's a better idea alcohol can be made from the fermentation of organic materials such as switchgrass and then converted to ethanol. Why can't they start a program where you set your lawnclippings out with your garbage and they be taken to a central facility and be made into ethanol. Low cost and not much profit gas and oil companies is my guess.


THat is interesting. I don't think the two are compatible. I have a Chevy Volt. I can't use gas with Ethanol in it.

As for the whole Ethanol problem I don't think it is very effective. I mean even Al Gore admits his touting of Ethanol was a huge mistake. The amount of energy you have to utilize to get the energy out of it is pretty close. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I am more intriqued with the idea of using large amounts of algae to produce oil. I don't know if this will be feasible anytime soon but that would be CO2 neutral. Certainly solar energy is the way to go. I also agree that to some extent energy companies' have a lot of incentive to make only methods that are highly capital intensive to be the way we get energy since they are highly capital leveraged.

I actually don't think WE specifically are dependent on foreign oil anymore but it doesn't matter because all of our trading partners are.

Posted on: 3/26 7:02 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Which alum would you like to see at the game?
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
I think it would be awesome if Ira Rodgers showed up. I would like to see him there.

Posted on: 3/25 11:24 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
That is a ridiculous statement.


Really? Because I have played more sports than many people have watched on TV over the course of about 15 years and I have NEVER blamed any loss on the officials. I have lost games by one point and won games by one point. I also have NEVER said that a referee GAVE me the game. If I felt my talent won the game I have to say that my talent lost the game. That is called being accountable.

Add to that the myriad of great coaches that I have had I have NEVER heard ONE of them state that the officials in general, and A SINGLE CALL in particular was EVER the reason we lost a game. Even in the privacy of our practices. The kid who touched the ball admitted that he shouldn't have done it. How much more culpable do you have to be? I feel really bad for the kid but I agree with him. Are you telling me he knew he had it legally? He didn't. That is just too close to know for sure.

The excuse of a bad call cost the team the game is just that. There are COUNTLESS things SMU could have done, SHOULD have done.

Once again, not saying that officials are perfect but as long as their imperfections across the game and season are unbiased, THEY did not win or lose a game. There are errors in every part of the game. These errors can have an effect on the game. The officials call had an effect on the game. Did it lose the game? No. The guy who bricked 2 shots at the end lost the game and the poor shooting and the poor free throw shooting during the game.

EDIT: Now if you want to talk about whether the officials have biases or not that is another topic, and one which has merit but to say anything about a single call worth 3 points out of 120 points is like trying to say that OJ walked because the prosecution messed up 2 sentences in their closing argument. Now how idiotic does that sound?

Posted on: 3/24 4:39 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
Yeah just imagine if Adrian wasn't held. But I forgot, perfect video evidence of a hold is "pathetic".


You believe that he couldn't make his move with the guys arm laying on his bicep?

Posted on: 3/24 12:30 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Thanks for posting the link to the play.....

Two things I didn't realize when I first saw the play was the look that the "center" has on the whole play. He is the guy you see over Staten's shoulder I was hoping at least that another player would be hiding this debacle.

Quote:
One - the reason Adrian was "late" to the screen was because the Maryland player was holding him. He clearly has Adrian wrapped around the right shoulder preventing Adrian from getting up to set the screen ... SO FOUL on Marylnad was the CORRECT call.


You think that this is a hold on Maryland? Really? The guy has his hand on Adrian's shoulder and this prevents him from moving his feet? That is pretty pathetic. Adrian is 6' 9" 240 pounds or so and an armed touching his bicep keeps him from getting to his spot? And you would call a foul on this? Talk about ticky tack fouls.

Even with the contact, Adrian has the screenee in sight. He should know the rule that AFTER he stops the guy has to have a normal step to miss him. Staten sees Adrian so Adrian can stop any time. With Staten on the correct side of Trimble he can aim for Adrian's hip utilizing the screen. Adrian doesn't have to go anywhere at all after the arm is lifted from his arm. It isn't like Adrian has to get to a specific spot on the floor.




Posted on: 3/24 11:59 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
You are delusional when it comes to discussions about referees. If one team would have won BUT FOR the wrong call, then the game was decided by that call, by definition. You can stick your head in the sand about it, but the reality is that one team moved on and one team didn't as a result of the referee's mistake. Apparently your argument is that referees have no responsibility whatsoever because the teams might have done something different during the game to put themselves in a different position. The fact is that the team put itself in a position to win, the other team didn't, and the refs changed the outcome. You cannot ref a game that might have happened, you have to ref the game that actually happened.


I am not delusional at all. I am pragmatic. It is delusional to believe that the only period that determines the game is the last 20 seconds. The game of basketball is a 40 minute game. So in the game that you refer where the game is extremely evenly matched the first 20 seconds is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the last 20 seconds.

By the way....AFTER the goal tending was awarded SMU had not one but TWO chances from VERY makeable distance to win the game. They missed their shots.....but the referee lost the game. That is an asinine comment any way you make it. Did the officials err in fact. Yes. Would I have called goal tending on that play? Probably. The rule says that it is a makeable basket the official cannot know that the ball is an inch and a half below the rim. You simply can't know that. Anyone that thinks you can obviously has never refereed a basketball game, especially when you are ALSO trying to determine if people are on the rebounders back.

I never said that the referees have NO responsibility. They have a responsibility to referee the game to the best of their ability. They do not as you DELUSIONALLY believe have a requirement to be RIGHT 100% of the time. NO ONE was right 100% of the time. In the end, let's say the officials missed 5 calls during the game (Not an unreasonable assumption given that the the average good official grades out between 92-94%.

Now realize that SMU shot 36% from the field.

36%

I know there are a lot of morons on here that say shooting doesn't matter but even if you MATCH the other teams percentage of 43% that is 6 more points right there. As I say there is no way that in a game of 120 or so shots to say that 1 is the deciding factor in the game is crazy and to further say that a ruling on ONE of those is the difference in the game. It was 6 versus 11.....take care of business and when you don't don't blame the official.

Posted on: 3/24 11:39 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
Then why is there never an intentional foul called on teams that are losing late in the game who are forcing the other team to shoot free throws? Those fouls are clearly INTENTIONAL fouls so why is it never an INTENTIONAL FOUL?


I would not say never. In general, I agree that there should be more intentional fouls called but it is a normal convention of the game that both sides want the ability to foul late in the game. I do occasionally call an intentional foul. One that should be called is when the foul is made with the clock stopped in order to keep the clock from starting.


Quote:

Also every now and then you see those monster picks when a player gets knocked to the ground in a muddled heap of writhing flesh and there is never a foul called for that either. Also, like it's been mentioned, Adrian is clearly held. No call on the Adrian hold, no call on the incidental contact.


Had Adrian stopped one step before he did and the same effect occurred it is not and issue of incidental contact or foul it is LEGAL contact. You have the legal right to screen provided it is legally done. I have seen MANY legal screens in which a player gets hurt. I even had a girl life flighted to Children's Hospital from the effects of a LEGAL screen. Was a foul called? No.

As I said above, just because a screen is illegal DOESN'T make it a foul. In this instance, clearly a player was placed at a disadvantage. It is a foul.

As for the hold, two wrongs don't make a right. I didn't see a hold but I will try to watch it again to see what I see if I can find it on youtube. Does anyone have a link to the play?


Posted on: 3/24 7:43 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
First, there has already been one tournament game decided by a bad call. There is no arguing that. Second, your post is really out there logic wise. Why would this one no call have cost Maryland the game? Was it a 9 point play? Makes no sense.


Did you bother to read my post? I am pretty sure I CLEARLY STATED my position that it did not. I am saying that on here I hear the referees cost us a game with _____ (you fill in the blank) when we lose by 20. Explain that logic.

The tournament game WAS NOT DECIDED by one call. You go ahead and believe that if you want but it wasn't. Not saying the call was correct but that one call did not decide the game. I am pretty sure if you want we can go through the tape and you can add your "three point bad call" and I will show you 10-20 points where the defense was out of position. I can show you another 10-15 points of shots that were open and missed. One call does not COST a game. I can show you a team that missed key foul shots and I am sure I can show you more than one questionable call AGAINST the other team. So stop buying the media hype.

By the way, not defending the officials because quite frankly I have seen some pretty bad officiating in this tournament. I am not sure this call was all that bad. Our TV had a unique angle that the official on the floor didn't have. Remember, he doesn't have as good a gauge of altitude.

Why would the guy hit the ball? He had to know it was close. Even he admitted that he shouldn't have touched it.

Posted on: 3/24 7:32 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
Jesus Christ someone posts a rule from the rule book every damn thread.


That was me. Believe it or not, there are some people who would like to understand the rules of the game. There are a VAST MAJORITY of people who THINK they know the rules of the game and do not.

Sadly. many of these people who THINK they know the rules then ruin a game experience for everyone by being a jackass at games. Trust me, I have seen a lot of idiots being carted out of games because they came on to the floor to explain how the referees were wrong. If my explanations stop this once, it is worth it.

If you don't want to read those you don't have to.

Posted on: 3/24 7:24 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
You can easily make the claim that it was inadvertent contact and that Adrian was bracing because he saw Trimble after being held.


Obviously you don't understand the rules of basketball. All contact that is a personal foul is INADVERTENT. If it were INTENTIONAL it would be an INTENTIONAL foul.

I think you mean "incidental" contact. Incidental contact is contact in which, the offending player gains no advantage and the offended player is not put at a disadvantage.

I am pretty sure that when you go from guarding a player attacking the basket to a muddled heap of writhing flesh on the floor, you were placed at a disadvantage and as such a foul should have been called. The next question is WAS the contact that led to the disadvantage legal. I don't see how viewing any angle that the contact was legal.

Posted on: 3/24 7:21 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
So you think Adrian's non-call decided the game?


No. I don't think calls or no calls decide ANY game. Games are decided by the players and the plays they make or don't make. I consistently see comments on here about how referees calls cost us the game. Just saying that if you believe that we have been wronged in all of the games we lost you have to say this call cost Maryland the game. You can't have it both ways.

Posted on: 3/24 7:01 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Bring on Maryland
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
I see where Adrian was held and it probably slowed him down getting into position a wee bit. I think, however, he wasn't late. I think Staten left too early, before Adrian had time to get into position and set a legal screen. In slow motion it looks close, but in real time it looks like an illegal (moving) screen to me.

Trimble was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got hammered.

The correct call would have been illegal screen, foul on Adrian, and it would have been Staten's fault, not Adrian's. Staten has done this before this year, not allowing a screen to be set before he takes off, and it has resulted in a foul on the player setting the screen.

Also if you look at the above video, the ref with the best view starts to slide along the sideline as Staten is driving, and slides right behind JC, just before the collision. I believe JC blocked his view and that's why nothing was called on Adrian.


That was, without a doubt, the most ILLEGAL screen I have ever viewed. I am hoping the official was screened but remember at that location there should be two sets of eyes on the play. The "trail" official takes Staten to the basket and any tomfoolery there. He should have anticipated the screen coming and moved TOWARDS the center line of the court not down to the baseline. (This is a mistake made by officials that are FAR inferior in athletic ability to the players they are officiating. He should have moved in to see the play.) Given that he didn't the "center" official has a perfect view of Adrian coming up the lane. It is in his area and would be his primary call.

There is NO DOUBT two officials got their asses hand to them after the game by their evaluator or will when the film is evaluated. I would say that of the two of them, the "trail" official (the guy who had Staten) is LEAST culpable but he moved the wrong way. You have probably seen the last of the "center" official in the post season....forever. Your career does not survive that. If you do get a second chance he had better be thankful and learn from it.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that a foul should have been called on Adrian. There are 2 reasons for this. First, he didn't even set a legal screen HAD Trimble been able to see him....BUT....since he screened Trimble from OUTSIDE of the visual field of Trimble, he is obligated under rule 4 Section 34, articles 1-7 but specifically article 3 subsection c, to give him sufficient reaction time.

Rule 4 Section 34:

Quote:

Section 34. Screen

Art. 1. A legal screen is action by any player, offensive or defensive, with or without the ball, which, without causing contact, delays or prevents an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Art. 2. In establishing and maintaining legal screening tactics, the screener shall:

a. Stay within his vertical plane with a stance no wider than shoulder width apart and shall not lean into the path of an opponent or extend hips into that path, even though the feet are stationary.

b. Not be required to face in any particular direction at any time.

Art. 3. A player shall not:

a. Cause contact by setting a screen outside the visual field of a stationary opponent that does not allow this opponent a normal step to move.

b. Make contact with the opponent when setting a screen within the visual field of that opponent.

c. Take a position so close to a moving opponent that this opponent cannot avoid contact by stopping or changing direction.

Art. 4. No player, while moving, shall set a screen that causes contact and delays an opponent from reaching a desired position.

Art. 5. When both opponents are moving in exactly the same path and direction and the screener slows down or stops and contact results, the trailing player shall be responsible for such contact.

Art. 6. No player shall use arm(s), hand(s), hip(s) or shoulder(s) to force through a screen or to hold or push the screener.

Art. 7. Screeners shall not line up next to each other within 6 feet of a boundary line and parallel to it so that contact occurs.

a. Screeners shall be permitted to line up parallel to a boundary line and next to each other without locking arms or grasping each other, provided that the screen is set at least 6 feet from the boundary line.


...and that is the whole of screening. One more thing to remember, just because a screen is illegal doesn't mean it is a foul. That is a separate issue. In the case of Trimble clearly he was put at a disadvantage by this contact and the foul should have been called.

For those of you that have been complaining about the officials "costing" you the game all season are you willing to state that the officials gave you a game? I thought not. It is amazing that officials only influence games in one direction. LOL This is amazing since basketball is a "zero sum" game.

In addition, did you see the belly up that was called against Maryland after a double team at the mid-court line late in the second half? (Maybe 7 minutes left) Here is an example of calling that during a game. The Maryland coach went ape-**** and the announcer stated that was one of the worst calls ever. Not that I would put much stock in the announcers but in this case he was right.

Posted on: 3/23 4:57 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: wvu vs buffalo 5 vs 12
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
WOW! So much for the concern about why no one picked Big 12 teams in the Elite 8. They can't even make it past beating the #14 seeds.

Posted on: 3/19 2:55 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The Official Murder Baylor Gameday Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
Question for Brobison: how many steps can I take while fumbling the ball?

Two? Five? Can I drive the base line with one long fumble, then gain control of the ball and dunk?


You can take as many steps as you can take. In my example of boy at the high school game he went from the 28 foot mark to the basket. I would say he had at least 10 steps in. Let's go back to the definition of a fumble:

Quote:
Art. 1. A fumble shall be the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player’s grasp.


The key here is accidental loss of player control. I am not saying it isn't a little subjective and I will now quote the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who voiced the immortal words (paraphrased here): "I will not attempt to define pornography but I know it when I see it."

The same is true here. I can't give you a definition of what accidental loss and unintentional are I observed this play and it appears to me that he lost it. Another question I ask myself is did the player gain any advantage from the move they just made? In this instance, I would say no. In fact, the loss placed him at a disadvantage because it could have been stolen by the WVU player, or he could have NOT gained control back and stepped out of bounds and there was NO guarantee that Gathers would be coming down the lane for the dish so he COULD have been trapped behind the basket. I don't really see any advantage that he could have seen at the time he fumbled it for him to "intentionally" fumbled it.

As I say if you go down the court tipping the ball from hand to hand I would say at some point it would be considered holding it or controlling it. That would be subjective too so it might be in your best interest to stop and try to gain control rather to live on the good graces of the official.

To answer your question there is NO LIMIT to the number of steps that can be taken without control. I have seen a number of steps and have seen A LOT of ways to lose control of the ball. I usually give the signal like in football with my hands that the player is "juggling" the ball. I consistently get dinged in my evaluations because this is NOT AN APPROVED signal. In my mind it conveys my ruling to the coach non-verbally and is done so almost immediate to the play and I can keep my attention on the play without verbally explaining to the coach. I have seen this signal given in the college game too (It isn't approved in college either so when you see the signal being given you can be "in" on the fact that the official is going to get yelled at by his/her evaluator and at the D-1 major conference level EVERY game is evaluated.)

Posted on: 3/14 8:00 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Big 12 wants tiebreaker to determine "one true champion"
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
The conference ADs said Thursday they are in favor of using a head-to-head tiebreaker to determine their College Football Playoff participant after co-champions TCU and Baylor were skipped over by the selection committee last season.


This leadership is complete idiots. They ALREADY had that! I posted a link dated June 2014 as the effective date. I am beginning to wonder about this conference.

http://www.wemustignitethiscouch.com/ ... id=740209#forumpost740209

Maybe they decided that having a backbone and using THEIR criteria to name a champion would have given Baylor the Conference Championship but by holding back they didn't get the nod because the Big 12 wouldn't take a stand.

Posted on: 3/13 8:37 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The Official Murder Baylor Gameday Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
Sorry brobison, but you wrong.

After ALREADY establishing possession (which makes a big difference) he jumped (establishing a pivot foot) and released the ball. He then landed, while stepping, and came back down with the ball.

He had already established his pivot foot on the jump and then returned his pivot foot to the floor while gaining possession of the ball.

Only Hillary and Bill would argue it was a "fumble" and therefore not a walk/travell/taking the bus.

Art. 5(a) applies.


OK, I will try one last time as sometimes too much is read into a rule.

The rule's parameters are quite complex but the rule is pretty simple. The Section that I copied from is the rule for Violations.

Article 1 tells us:

You are not allowed to do this thing we call traveling (whatever that is). We haven't got to the definition yet. In article 1 we are told not to do it.

Article 2 DEFINES traveling.

Quote:
Art. 2. Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this section.


Can't be more simple than this. The REST of the section (the other articles) describe the prescribed limits of moving the feet. The player was CLEARLY not HOLDING the ball. Aricles 3-7 DO NOT APPLY in this instance because HE IS NOT HOLDING THE BALL!

Holding means, in the present tense possessing the ball in your hands! It matters not what you were doing previously. In this instance the ONLY rule that describes what he is doing is fumbling.

Clearly he is not in control of the ball. Anyone who says that he does is probably would not be qualified to call a basketball game. I think most sane rational people would say that is a fumble. What does the fumble rule say?

Quote:
Art. 2. A fumble may be legally recovered by any player


Is he a member of the set of ANY players? I am saying he is.

Now he did appear to do a little something with his foot after catching the ball. IF he jumped in the air and came back down and passed to the dunker that would definitely be a travel. I watched it a couple of times. I couldn't be sure after a couple of times watching it there is no way I call that after the first viewing.


Quote:
So by definition you can go up for a shot let go of it grab it and it's not a walk. Because that's exactly what happened. That used to be a walk. Another player had to touch it. Is this new or is this a case of how they interpret the rule. It was always a rule once you went up the ball you couldnt come back with the ball. Seen that same play called a travel before. But how it's stated I guess it's not.


This is not exactly what happened here. He did not, in my opinion attempt a "try". He simply lost control of the ball. However, had he attempted a try, he could have gotten his own rebound. I had a game earlier this year where the boy going to the hoop stops.....jumps...I have no idea what he is thinking and puts up the most horribly formed shot I have ever seen. It leaves his hand, never breaks 9 feet in altitude and ends up less than 3 feet in front of him. He catches it in the air dishes to the opposite forward who lays it in. The coach complains. I told him I ruled it a try. Even he thought it was a try. The rules don't say it has to be a good one. Just that it IS one.

The walking rule has not changed in a LONG time. It is likely that the violation was incorrectly called when you saw it before. I see this a lot in High School games. I was in a high school game in which my partner called a travel during the game. The play was coming directly towards me and I had a good view. The coach was quite upset with me and voiced her opinion to me vociferously. I listened to her and said nothing. This call was against the visiting team and the fans were (incorrectly) screaming for the travel. At the half we went into the locker room and this was our discussion.

Partner: Wow! XXXXX (names withheld to protect the innocent) was really riding you. Why didn't you 'T' her.
Me: Because she was right. Did you see the ball when you called the walk?
Partner: No. But she had to have walked she took too many steps.
Me: No. She didn't. She did not have the ball. In fact, when you blew the whistle the closest person to the ball was the OTHER TEAM! You have to either move to see the ball or hold the whistle but you can't make the call on "I think!"

Posted on: 3/13 8:16 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The Official Murder Baylor Gameday Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Sorry about the crappiness of the rule book copy. I edited it and it looked good in my window but turned out bad.

Posted on: 3/13 1:55 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The Official Murder Baylor Gameday Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
He took 3 steps, jumped, then hopped, then passed. I didn't know you never have to dribble as long as you are bobbling the ball. Next time I'm in a pick up game I'm going coast to coast without dribbling and there's nothing anybody can do to stop me because I will never have full possession.


Well....Here is the rule DIRECTLY from the college rule book.

Quote:

Section 6. Traveling
Art. 1. A player shall not travel with the ball.
Art. 2. Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this section.
Art. 3. A player who catches the ball with both feet on the playing court may pivot, using either foot. When one foot is lifted, the other is the pivot foot.
Art. 4. A player who catches the ball while moving or ends a dribble may stop and establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. When both feet are off the playing court and the
player lands:
1. Simultaneously on both feet, either may be the
pivot foot;
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first
foot to touch shall be the pivot foot;
3. On one foot, the player may jump off that foot
and simultaneously land on both, in which case
neither foot can be the pivot foot.
b. When one foot is on the playing court:
1. That foot shall be the pivot foot when the
other foot touches in a step;
2. The player may jump off that foot and
simultaneously land on both, in which case
neither foot can then be the pivot foot.
Art. 5. After coming to a stop and establishing the pivot foot:
a. The pivot foot may be lifted, but not returned to
the playing court, before the ball is released on a
pass or try for goal;
b. The pivot foot shall not be lifted before the ball
is released to start a dribble.
Art. 6. After coming to a stop when neither foot can be the pivot foot:
a. One or both feet may be lifted, but may not be
returned to the playing court, before the ball is
released on a pass or try for goal;
b. Neither foot shall be lifted, before the ball is
released, to start a dribble.
Art. 7. It is traveling when a player falls to the playing court while holding the ball without maintaining a pivot foot


In this rule the key here is Article 2. which states:

Quote:
Art. 2. Traveling occurs when a player holding the ball moves a foot or both feet in any direction in excess of prescribed limits described in this section.


Another part of the rules which applies to this situation is from rule 4 - the definition of fumble:

Quote:
Section 16. Fumble
Art. 1. A fumble shall be the accidental loss of player control when the ball unintentionally drops or slips from a player’s grasp.
Art. 2. A fumble may be legally recovered by any player


Clearly, in my opinion and that of the official(s) (At the place he fumbled the ball both the center official and lead official were most likely watching with varying degrees of detail) watching the play, is that he fumbled the ball. Do you agree? If not then maybe he did walk but I don't see it.

In your example of going coast to coast, I would say that it would be possible but at sometime one would think that you are not fumbling but possessing the ball and they would call a walk.

The furthest I have seen a legitmate fumble, in my opinion, was a game I officiated 3 years ago in a boys game where the fast break ball handler lost control of the ball at about the 28 foot line on his goals side of the floor and didn't gain control again until just before he laid it in for a layup. No Walk call. Consternation from the coach... Hullabaloo from the fans....Commendation by my evaluator at the game for not calling a walk.

The walk call is one of the most misunderstood rules in basketball (followed closely by the block/charge) and is the most poorly called rule in basketball. When Hank Nichols was the NCAA director of officials the NCAA did a study of the travel call and found that when an official blew his whistle and called a travel 40% of the time he/she was WRONG. That is a lot of being wrong. If we aren't doing better than that it would be right not to call it at all.




Posted on: 3/13 1:55 pm
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The Official Murder Baylor Gameday Thread
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
"That is a violation. That is called a walk. When it's a 1 point game you have to make that call."

Quote from an ESPN analyst going over our game today after that Prince steal that lead to a Gathers dunk. That's when Baylor pulled away. If you actually call one of the most blatant travels right there, who knows what happens.


I watched the steal and the Gather's dunk. I saw no walk during the highlights of that play. The ESPN analyst is at best ignorant of the rules and probably an idiot.

Person who stole the ball (I assume Prince as that was the title of the film clip) and drove to the basket clearly loses control at the close to the low post. He gains control of the ball on the baseline. He passes the ball to, I assume Gathers as this is the second half of the title of the clip, who dunks the ball. As an official I see no violation in either instance.

How about we blame the two points on the telegraphing of the pass and the poor pass?

Posted on: 3/13 11:43 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: 2014 Hottest Year on Record
Makin' it Rain
Joined:
8/2/2010 10:50 am
From Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 3627
Quote:
what if all the "evidence" that is claimed to be proof is actually the exception, not the rule?


I think you have just stated the greatest oxymoron of all times. What if all the evidence is the exception! If there was "all the evidence" I find it hard to see it could be an exception. You would need to show that the evidence being presented represents something that would be excluded via an outlier algorithm.

I am pretty sure that the people looking at this have already thought about that.

Posted on: 3/12 10:39 am
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 181 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved