Did anyone else happen to notice when the Wiscy player got the ball at the very end of the game signaling for time out? Pretty sure they were out of timeouts.
Missed technical foul in the Indiana game?
- Thread starter myteamcanbeatupyourteam
- Start date
There was also a flagrant holding on the rim not called. I think I've only seen it called against Iowa this year.
I wonder if Bo was watching the game...and called the Big Ten to tell them they missed an obvious technical on the time out...with none left?
In BB...there is lots of officiating that is in the eyes of the beholder...which can either help or hurt your team...and frustrate fans...the losing fans that is.
In BB...there is lots of officiating that is in the eyes of the beholder...which can either help or hurt your team...and frustrate fans...the losing fans that is.
The hanging on the rim was understandable. It was a dead ball, foul had already been called and there was plenty of bodies underneath him.
I think with the new rules, it's optional for refs to grant player's time out requests. At least that what I took from the ref completely ignoring Gesell's time out in the Purdue game.
Hayes should've been T'd up for hanging on the rim after being fouled on the ground, there were no players underneath him as he dunked wide open and pretty much did a hanging pull up on the rim. Also they could of gave him one when he blocked Williams and proceeded to stare him down. The best was Crean complained, and the ref pulled both Williams and Hayes together to call them down. What Williams did if anything, who knows.
All of the above is why Jared Uthoff is an even better player, who shows up people in most games, and doesn't change his expression at all. The type of knock you on your butt and pick you up guy.
All of the above is why Jared Uthoff is an even better player, who shows up people in most games, and doesn't change his expression at all. The type of knock you on your butt and pick you up guy.
Technical fouls used to be more severe. Instead of just one shot, it was two shots plus possession of the ball. Now, if you don't have any times outs left and can't get the ball in, it might not be such a bad idea to get the T to save a turnover, since it is only one shot. That happened in another game yesterday. The guy missed the FT and the violating team actually was given the timeout. Personally, I don't think you should be able to buy a TO with a technical.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
I've only seen Iowa get called for hanging on the rim: White last year and Jok this year. And I watch a lot of college hoops. Kids commonly not only hang on the room, but they do all kinds of antics in the process intended to show up and intimidate the other team, and I have YET to see any of those blatant exhibitions draw a T. Of course, those kids don't have IOWA on their jerseys, so there's that...
White last year and Jok this year didn't do a damn thing. And Barta had better be complaining about all this BS to the Big Ten office. It should not go unnoticed.
White last year and Jok this year didn't do a damn thing. And Barta had better be complaining about all this BS to the Big Ten office. It should not go unnoticed.
You're still being penalized by the free throw. There aren't many situation that would ever make sense, it's not like you could advance the ball for the inbound.
I'm all for taking the refs influence out of the game as much as possible. It used to be a 4-5 point swing for a player not even effecting the game by hanging on the rim. That's ridiculous for a subjective call that doesn't matter.
My overall impression this year is that Iowa is being treated fairly and is actually getting the benefit of the doubt on lots of calls...probably because better teams, that do well, tend to be treated with more respect, and get the "breaks"...all refs are human beings...subject to the same influences...
Also...
Fran hasn't thrown any chair or gone postal...refs don't like this.
Iowa's players, led by stone face Uthoff...don't tend to make faces or complain...few showboats...refs don't like this.
The new "rules" tend to help Iowa, preventing thuggery from MSU, etc. We will see vs the grabbing, pushing, Badgers...the true litmus test. If the season drifts into grabbing and pushing...it won't bode well for Iowa which needs freedom of movement to function at a high level.
Iowa has earned respect from opposing coaches and players, from the media, (listen to the gushing on BTN) and from the refs...
It is well earned and a good thing...my two cents, based on what I have seen.
Also...
Fran hasn't thrown any chair or gone postal...refs don't like this.
Iowa's players, led by stone face Uthoff...don't tend to make faces or complain...few showboats...refs don't like this.
The new "rules" tend to help Iowa, preventing thuggery from MSU, etc. We will see vs the grabbing, pushing, Badgers...the true litmus test. If the season drifts into grabbing and pushing...it won't bode well for Iowa which needs freedom of movement to function at a high level.
Iowa has earned respect from opposing coaches and players, from the media, (listen to the gushing on BTN) and from the refs...
It is well earned and a good thing...my two cents, based on what I have seen.
It is not a technical foul to request a time out your team does not have. It is a technical foul to be granted an extra timeout. If the ref did not grant the timeout, then there is no technical foul.
Hayes would skirt the "hanging on the rim" rule by arguing he waited for a clear path to land as he was contacted by an Indiana player when he initially grabbed the rim. However, it was pretty blatant.
Hayes would skirt the "hanging on the rim" rule by arguing he waited for a clear path to land as he was contacted by an Indiana player when he initially grabbed the rim. However, it was pretty blatant.
I do agree with your second point, but I wouldn't mind the penalty being more severe for calling TO when you don't have one. If I'm up 3 points late and I can't get the ball in or I get trapped, I'll just call TO, give the other team one free throw and keep the ball, rather than risk the 5-second call or the turnover to give up a chance for a 2- or 3-point basket. There are scenarios where that would make sense. The other option is to clarify the rule so that officials will know who has TOs remaining and will simply not respond to attempts to call TO when a team doesn't have any left.....but this relies on the ref knowing, in the moment, whether a team has a TO left.
This is exactly what happened last night (I think it was the Providence-Xavier game). All players but the guy in bounding the ball run to the other end of the court, so he calls timeout to avoid the impending turnover. Other team misses the one shot technical. The part I disagree with is that the team getting the technical is then allowed to have a timeout, as if they had one left. I had never seen that and it seemed strange to me.
I am glad that technical fouls are now just one shot, but taking a technical for a timeout at the end of a game actually helped the team getting the technical.
The timeout almost doesn't matter in that situation. The critical part isn't the coach getting to speak to the guys and draw up a play, it's the fact that there's no 5-count or other type of turnover on the court....or the clock stops. Those scenarios should be worth more than 1 free throw....or the refs should just let the game play on and let the turnover happen.
Good point. Calling a timeout when you don't have any should automatically be the other teams ball. I guess I was more thinking about Technicals caused by arguing/hanging on the rim.
The refs can barely handle their jobs as is so I don't think they would be quick enough to just not grant the timeout.
I kind of like the automatic turnover idea. I think the reason the technical foul rule for calling a timeout you don't have is on the books is that it's the scorekeeper that keeps official record on timeouts, not the ref. The ref should react to what's called on the court and then, if there's no timeout available, penalties assessed. I would hate for a team to legitimately have a timeout left, but then be ignored on a key play by the ref who thinks they don't have any left.
For other technicals like hanging on the rim, I think the one FT and then play on is the right rule.
If officials are properly communicating with each other, they will inform the head coach AND each other that Team A is out of timle outs. The officials should know how many timeouts are left (if any). I have had 2 or 3 instances in my career where a player has tried to call time out when he had none left. I would not grant the timeout and clearly state to the player, "Play on. You have no timeouts". In high school ball, if I give the 6th timeout, it's 2 free throws and the ball is awarded to the opposing team at mid-court. Which makes it a huge mistake for the offensive team.
Does the opposing team really automatically get the ball? Doesn't it just become a deadball, shoot the free throws, then resume play where it had stopped? Not familiar with the specific rules for that situation on how enforcement works once the timeout is granted.
Currently, one technical foul shot, time out granted, then play resumes with the same team in possession. Not sure when the rule changed, but in the past, it had been two shots and loss of possession. Personally, I like something in between, maybe loss of possession with the other team taking the ball out right away.
As we learned after the game, Hayes was not staring down Ward. In the brief discussion with the ref, both Ward and Hayes acknowledged as much.
Hayes was giving the evil eye to Indiana assistant coach Anderson, who had consistently been making noises to distract Hayes (not clear if it was other Badger shooters, also) when at the free throw line. It should have been the Indiana bench that was T'd up, with Anderson (sp?) being escorted to the visitor's locker room.
So, Tan Tommie isn't the only IU coach who doesn't mind stretching the rules to win...
So you're saying as a ref you have the option to disregard the timeout call or give the technical. I'd be pretty pissed if I was the opposing team. It's a dumb rule but it's still a rule so how can you not make the call?
If I clearly know the team in possession of the ball cannot legally call a timeout, I will ignore the request. This usually ends up as a 5 second call or a turnover (high school). But if you were unsure of the timeout situation, you would grant the timeout and apply the associated penalties. That is why it is important that officials communicate with each other about timeouts left, bonus situations and end of game clock and possession arrow status. I would feel that I failed as an official if I called an ineligible timeout. If I am on top of the game situation it doesn't occur. Now if for some reason, a player asked again for an illegal timeout after I informed him he has none left, then I would give it to him and let him deal with his in coach's wrath. 
I'm curious is this proper procedure for where you officiate? With your association is this what they teach? I'm not questioning I'm just curious. Also where do you officiate? What states, areas, cities?If I clearly know the team in possession of the ball cannot legally call a timeout, I will ignore the request. This usually ends up as a 5 second call or a turnover (high school). But if you were unsure of the timeout situation, you would grant the timeout and apply the associated penalties. That is why it is important that officials communicate with each other about timeouts left, bonus situations and end of game clock and possession arrow status. I would feel that I failed as an official if I called an ineligible timeout. If I am on top of the game situation it doesn't occur. Now if for some reason, a player asked again for an illegal timeout after I informed him he has none left, then I would give it to him and let him deal with his in coach's wrath.
I disagree, you can't call hanging on the rim if there is any question at all of people being underneath or even around him. It's not worth it.
You can't know what he could see from that vantage point.
I also think the one on Jok was BS.
To me you can only call that if it's beyond obvious.
