How would you have officiated Duke/VaTech differently?

[feldspar]

I'm seeing an overwhelming amount of comments on the "awful," "inconsistent" and "horrible" nature of the officiating last night, so I'd invite those who had qualms with the officiating crew to step up and list, in detail, what you would have done differently had you laced up the sneaks and put on the stripes last night.

I'm not talking about general stuff ("I would have called it more consistent" or "I would have tightened things up"), I'm talking about specifics. What calls would you have or have not made.

I'll start us off. I would have called the goaltending in the second half that Len Elmore said didn't even have a chance of hitting the rim.

[TillyGalore]

I think the T on DeMarcus, which some have complained was too quick, was the right move. Yes, Washington deserved the jawing, and a little more, but things were getting intense at that point of the game and the refs HAD to bring things under control or there could have been bigger issues.

Sorry Feldspar, I know this isn't what you were looking for, but just had to add my $.02.

[feldspar]

Originally Posted by TillyGalore

Sorry Feldspar, I know this isn't what you were looking for, but just had to add my $.02.

Hey I'm not complaining! I'll take positive comments, too.

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

I think that right out of the gate there was a lot of physical play that needed to be shutdown. By not calling more fouls in the first 5 minutes, the zebras created an environment for bad blood to grow. Trying to regain control at the end by calling T's and more fouls would not have been my preferred approach.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[CDu]

Honestly, aside from Washington, there was very little that was out of control in this game. And most of what was out of control was Washington trying to draw cheap fouls and not getting the call. Aside from the undercut,

There are two things that I might have done differently:

1. Make more of a point to tell Washington that his theatrics were unacceptable. Specifically, in the first half, Washington tried to draw a foul on Henderson after Washington tried to sneak into Duke's huddle. Henderson raised his arm to block Washington's path, and Washington flailed. The official saw the whole thing, but instead of giving him a warning, he simply laughed and joked with Washington about the play.
2. In the second half, when Washington was flailing on every play, I'd have definitely stopped play at some point and warned both benches and the player. I think they did a good thing calling the intentional foul as an attempt to curb some of Washington's antics, but it wasn't enough.

Other than those two things, there really wasn't much. A lot of fouls were called, and called early in each half. And aside from the flopping theatrics and tripping Singler, there was nothing Washington did that was over the top before the undercut or the hard foul. And I don't think the undercut was clearly intentional (at least not clearly enough) to warrant a call.

[CDu]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Hi,

I think that right out of the gate there was a lot of physical play that needed to be shutdown. By not calling more fouls in the first 5 minutes, the zebras created an environment for bad blood to grow. Trying to regain control at the end by calling T's and more fouls would not have been my preferred approach.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

The refs called a TON of fouls in the first five minutes. Both teams were in the bonus before the 10 minute mark of the first half.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Agree with Jeffrey. The officials made what seems to be a conscious decision to "let them play" early on. The game quickly got out of hand and so they tried to regain control with a lot of late ticky-tack calls and some VERY quick T's. This (of course) frustrated the players and fans.

Instead, since we know VTech is a "physical" team the officials should have set an early tone. Call some grabbing, shoving, etc. early. I recognize that a lot of fouls were called early, but they all went for egregious contact AFTER 3-4 close calls were not blown. A quick T on Washington wouldn't have hurt (might even have forced him to be a little more under control throughout) or a warning as others have suggested. I think the entire game would have been cleaner, safer, and less frustrating for everyone involved.

[feldspar]

Originally Posted by DevilCastDownfromDurham

Agree with Jeffrey. The officials made what seems to be a conscious decision to "let them play" early on.

You are wrong.

There was a foul called in the first 5 seconds of the game. The first 5 seconds!!

There were 9 fouls in the first five minutes. That's almost two a minute.

I don't know how much basketball you watch, but that's a lot of fouls.

[dukeENG2003]

I would have warned Washington on the undercut move for sure, possibly given him a flagrant there. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that other than intent to injure. He was in better rebounding position had he stayed where he was.

I would have then given him a flagrant on the block/foul that happened later (not due to intent, but due to excessive contact).

I would have warned him explicitly about the flopping (that would have done him a favor, perhaps he would have actually played some defense instead).

I would have asked Greenberg to get his players whining under control, they complained after EVERY call, even obvious ones.

I would have called a charge when Paulus got LEVELED (yes, the player didn't have the ball at the time, but that doesn't matter by rule).

They didn't do a terrible job, they just gave Washington too long of a leash and put up with too much complaining.

[feldspar]

Originally Posted by dukeENG2003

I would have warned Washington on the undercut move for sure, possibly given him a flagrant there. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that other than intent to injure. He was in better rebounding position had he stayed where he was.

I would have then given him a flagrant on the block/foul that happened later (not due to intent, but due to excessive contact).

I would have warned him explicitly about the flopping (that would have done him a favor, perhaps he would have actually played some defense instead).

I would have asked Greenberg to get his players whining under control, they complained after EVERY call, even obvious ones.

I would have called a charge when Paulus got LEVELED (yes, the player didn't have the ball at the time, but that doesn't matter by rule).

They didn't do a terrible job, they just gave Washington too long of a leash and put up with too much complaining.

I will point out that none of us has any idea what was said to whom by the officials during the course of the game, so much of what you said could have actually occurred. The officials talk to the players on a regular basis about this kind of stuff.

[dukeENG2003]

very true, although if he was indeed warned as I had suggested, it was clear it had little effect, so they should have done it MORE (or escalated it to the level of a T even if necessary).

About the flopping, perhaps they did, b/c they really didn't give him many calls near the end (and we DID get a charge call, which I rarely see in a blowout scenario), and the foul to get him out of the game was BS (but a good idea, it just wasn't a foul).

[Karl Beem]

I'd have T'd up Washington twice in the first minute.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Would you say that the game was called closely? "A lot of fouls" is not the same as "called closely." I'm arguing that a concerted effort to call handchecks, bumps, pushoffs, etc in the first five minutes would have sent a message that the game was going to be clean. Players would have adjusted or (in Washington's case) fouled out in the first 5 minutes.

The officials weren't the story of this game, and I agree that too much time is being spent discussing them. Still, JCD the officials all you want, but this was a rough and ragged game and allowing guys like Washington to act as he did contributed to that.

[darthur]

Originally Posted by dukeENG2003

I would have called a charge when Paulus got LEVELED (yes, the player didn't have the ball at the time, but that doesn't matter by rule).

Oh yeah - I forgot about that play. That call was absolute garbage. Charges don't get much more obvious than that.

[CDu]

Originally Posted by DevilCastDownfromDurham

Would you say that the game was called closely? "A lot of fouls" is not the same as "called closely." I'm arguing that a concerted effort to call handchecks, bumps, pushoffs, etc in the first five minutes would have sent a message that the game was going to be clean. Players would have adjusted or (in Washington's case) fouled out in the first 5 minutes.

The officials weren't the story of this game, and I agree that too much time is being spent discussing them. Still, JCD the officials all you want, but this was a rough and ragged game and allowing guys like Washington to act as he did contributed to that.

And I'd say that they DID make an effort to call these things, even early in the game, which was evidenced by the high number of fouls called.

[Cavlaw]

How about VT's "steal" that involved laying on the floor with the ball out of bounds near the end of the first half?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by CDu

The refs called a TON of fouls in the first five minutes. Both teams were in the bonus before the 10 minute mark of the first half.

Hi,

IMO, it was a very physical game that was not strongly controlled by the zebras in the the opening minutes. IMO, if the zebra had set the tone in the early minutes that they would not tolerate an overly physical game, then the rest of the game would not have played out the way it did. Seldom do good things occur when you allow the kids to play that physically.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[Jumbo]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Hi,

I think that right out of the gate there was a lot of physical play that needed to be shutdown. By not calling more fouls in the first 5 minutes, the zebras created an environment for bad blood to grow. Trying to regain control at the end by calling T's and more fouls would not have been my preferred approach.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

I believe both teams were in the one-and-one about eight minutes into the first half, and almost defintiely by the midpoint of the first half. They called a ton of fouls early.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by CDu

And I'd say that they DID make an effort to call these things, even early in the game, which was evidenced by the high number of fouls called.

Hi,

IMO, the foul count was more a reflection of how physical the game was than how tightly the zebras were calling it. Some fouls cannot be ignored even if you want to.

CDu, on a scale of 1 to 10, how physical do you think the game was?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Jumbo

I believe both teams were in the one-and-one about eight minutes into the first half, and almost defintiely by the midpoint of the first half. They called a ton of fouls early.

Hi,

IMO, the foul count was more a reflection of how physical the game was than how tightly the zebras were calling it. Some fouls cannot be ignored even if you want to.

Jumbo, on a scale of 1 to 10, how physical do you think the game was?

Best regards,
Jeffrey