NCAA Basketball 2014-2015 (This may help ease the pain)

[Valmy]

I grew up a Miami fan, and hated ND, and can clearly say that was not in any way a fumble in 1988 (my grandparents actually drove from Miami to South Bend to watch that crap).

But then I ended up getting a degree from ND (while I was banned from here), so here we are.

At least both the Miami and ND fan can agree that ND was the true champion in 1993 though right?

[crazy canuck]

I wonder what we are seeing is a direction from the NCAA director of officiating to call games more tightly?

In the last couple of years there has been an overall focus at the high school and college levels to "clean up" the game as far as it concerns letting defenders impede offensive players, mostly on cutting, riding to the players to the basket, etc.,

What is odd though is that it seems like to me those aren't the calls that people question though.

It is more the contact in the act of shooting that everyone wants something else on.

My own feeling is that I mostly *react* that they call too many fouls on defenders playing "good" defense.

The calls I am talking about are the ones that are occurring away from the ball.  Denying the post player position, cutting off the cutter etc.  IMO that is good defense.

Huh - interesting. To be honest, away from the ball call's are usually the ones that, as an official, I consider to be largely obvious when they happen.

Denying a post player position, for example. By rule, you cannot ever move someone from their spot on the floor. If they are there legally, displacing them is almost always a foul. This is a pretty obvious call. You can't just shove someone away from the basket in the post.

Cutting off the cutter, same thing - if it is a foul, it is because the person trying to cut them off didn't get there in time, and that is usually a pretty obvious call, and easy to make...if you see it.

I wonder what you consider "good defense" if you see these calls and think they are wrong...or should not be called.

How did denying the post become moving someone from their spot on the floor. You see phantom posts.  Do you also see phantom fouls?

[Berkut]

I wonder what we are seeing is a direction from the NCAA director of officiating to call games more tightly?

In the last couple of years there has been an overall focus at the high school and college levels to "clean up" the game as far as it concerns letting defenders impede offensive players, mostly on cutting, riding to the players to the basket, etc.,

What is odd though is that it seems like to me those aren't the calls that people question though.

It is more the contact in the act of shooting that everyone wants something else on.

My own feeling is that I mostly *react* that they call too many fouls on defenders playing "good" defense.

The calls I am talking about are the ones that are occurring away from the ball.  Denying the post player position, cutting off the cutter etc.  IMO that is good defense.

Huh - interesting. To be honest, away from the ball call's are usually the ones that, as an official, I consider to be largely obvious when they happen.

Denying a post player position, for example. By rule, you cannot ever move someone from their spot on the floor. If they are there legally, displacing them is almost always a foul. This is a pretty obvious call. You can't just shove someone away from the basket in the post.

Cutting off the cutter, same thing - if it is a foul, it is because the person trying to cut them off didn't get there in time, and that is usually a pretty obvious call, and easy to make...if you see it.

I wonder what you consider "good defense" if you see these calls and think they are wrong...or should not be called.

How did denying the post become moving someone from their spot on the floor. You see phantom posts.  Do you also see phantom fouls?

Because when someone gets called on a foul away from the ball in post play, and the complaint is "they were denying the post" what is being called is often someone moving them away from the post. Or hooking them, but it is more often a push.

"denying the post" is not a foul. Check a rulebook - nothing in there about not being allowed to do that.

So IF there is a foul called on a defender in relation to someone doing SOMETHING that is described as "denying the post", then absent the official just deciding to make shit up, they are calling something illegal, and that is usually a defender trying to move the post player away from the basket.

I've been doing this for about 15 years, so if you care about what my experience says is generally the actual foul in that situation, awesome, I am happy to share. If you want to be a douchebag, and act like a asshole, then why bother even having the discussion?

[crazy canuck]

"denying the post" is not a foul. Check a rulebook - nothing in there about not being allowed to do that.

Which is why Refs should stop calling it.  Touchy.

[Berkut]

"denying the post" is not a foul. Check a rulebook - nothing in there about not being allowed to do that.

Which is why Refs should stop calling it.  Touchy.

I've watched probably over 1000 basketball games, and never seen a ref report "denying the post" as a foul. I don't think you have either.

[derspiess]

He could have called it as something else.

[jimmy olsen]

Local UK bandwagon fans are out in full force.  Tim would be proud.

Yeah, remember all those times I abandoned my home town team to root for someone else? Oh, wait, that's never happened.

[Admiral Yi]

By rule, you cannot ever move someone from their spot on the floor. If they are there legally, displacing them is almost always a foul. This is a pretty obvious call. You can't just shove someone away from the basket in the post.

I wish this would get called on the offense once in a while.

[Valmy]

Local UK bandwagon fans are out in full force.  Tim would be proud.

Yeah, remember all those times I abandoned my home town team to root for someone else? Oh, wait, that's never happened.

Wait you live in South Bend, Indiana?

[jimmy olsen]

Local UK bandwagon fans are out in full force.  Tim would be proud.

Yeah, remember all those times I abandoned my home town team to root for someone else? Oh, wait, that's never happened.

Wait you live in South Bend, Indiana?

URI doesn't have division one football.

Notre Dame hasn't been a dominant team since before I started following football, as long as I consistently follow them, how is that bandwagoning?

[alfred russel]

At least both the Miami and ND fan can agree that ND was the true champion in 1993 though right?

Actually, hell no.

Back then there were two teams that for Miami fans represented the ultimate enemy: Florida and Notre Dame.

The FSU and Miami programs had a lot in common, and especially for Miami the rivalry was really important--and not one that FSU needed to keep (Florida dropped Miami). Miami was definitely renegade program #1, but FSU was probably the runner up. There was a good bit of respect for FSU from Miami fans. No respect at all went to Notre Dame.

I think the younger generation of Miami fans doesn't share that point of view toward FSU.

[alfred russel]

Local UK bandwagon fans are out in full force.  Tim would be proud.

Yeah, remember all those times I abandoned my home town team to root for someone else? Oh, wait, that's never happened.

Wait you live in South Bend, Indiana?

All Catholics get to be Notre Dame fans without bandwagoning accusations.

[Valmy]

URI doesn't have division one football.

FBS is still division I, traitor

Notre Dame hasn't been a dominant team since before I started following football, as long as I consistently follow them, how is that bandwagoning?

Pfft whatever. You also rooted for USC because you had a hard on for Pete Carroll and I didn't see you rooting for Pete in the Super Bowl!

[Valmy]

Actually, hell no.

Back then there were two teams that for Miami fans represented the ultimate enemy: Florida and Notre Dame.

The FSU and Miami programs had a lot in common, and especially for Miami the rivalry was really important--and not one that FSU needed to keep (Florida dropped Miami). Miami was definitely renegade program #1, but FSU was probably the runner up. There was a good bit of respect for FSU from Miami fans. No respect at all went to Notre Dame.

I think the younger generation of Miami fans doesn't share that point of view toward FSU.

Ok but still Notre Dame should have been the National Champs. They beat FSU. The only other difference was that Nebraska had horrible kickers and Boston College didn't.

[Valmy]

We will see if OUsux can hang on in the second half.

Meanwhile UT's classless douche AD gave Rick Barnes a bunch of intolerable demands to stay. So he will probably resign. What a bunch of crap, Texas' AD lacks the guts to simply fire him.

However I guess we can now give a heartfelt farewell to Texas' winningest and most successful basketball coach ever. Long overdue but I will look back on his good times with gratitude.

But still the long bitter decline is over



Now Texas can commence a period of uninterrupted mediocrity after our worthless AD makes a bad hire.