My Gripes with Your Gripes About Officiating

[markfromj]

1) "Neither I nor these refs know what a foul is": That is because a foul is not and cannot be defined. It is entirely subjective.

2) "I just want consistency": It can't exist. In the history of basketball, no two plays have ever been the same. Each play is unique in its details. No (see Illinois game thread), Iowa did not in fact make "that same steal" earlier. They made a unique play.

3) "These refs are for <insert opponent>": Meanwhile, on opponent's board, "These refs are for Iowa".

Sure, there are good and bad refs, and good and bad calls, and in fact good and bad overall called games. But, I'd trust the ref with 30 years experience and on the court 100 times as much as I'd trust me or you watching on TV when our jobs are something other than officiating.

Just let it be.

 

[littlez]

Well said. Very well said.

 

[TailgateTom]

So your position is officials make calls based on their feelings instead of according to the rules, which leads to #2 inconsistency of the application of the rules. Sounds like the general gripes about officiating are legit.

 

[Pepperman]

Fair enough - my gripes are with our fans that are absolutely CERTAIN that the Hawks never get the benefit of the home whistle, while being equally CERTAIN that we're always the victim when playing on the road.

Our fans, along with every other fans, are emotional and unable to see things objectively.

 

[Zildjian6868]

There are too many fouls called based on who has more fouls. It’s seems like refs want the fouls to be equal at the end of the game so they can say that they called an equal game. Problem is, this is never the case. One team is always going to be more aggressive than the other and so one team always seems to get screwed.

 

[markfromj]

So your position is officials make calls based on their feelings instead of according to the rules, which leads to #2 inconsistency of the application of the rules. Sounds like the general gripes about officiating are legit.

No. There is no rule that truly defines a "foul". It says "Illegal contact", which, of course, is self-defining ("a foul is 'illegal contact', when "illegal contact" is not (and cannot be) defined).

 

[DewHawk]

Fair enough - my gripes are with our fans that are absolutely CERTAIN that the Hawks never get the benefit of the home whistle, while being equally CERTAIN that we're always the victim when playing on the road.

Our fans, along with every other fans, are emotional and unable to see things objectively.

I don't believe many fans think the bold statement, but unlike you many think the officiating is often bad, bias at times, and influenced by the crowd.

 

[walleye hunter16]

No. There is no rule that truly defines a "foul". It says "Illegal contact", which, of course, is self-defining ("a foul is 'illegal contact', when "illegal contact" is not (and cannot be) defined).

LOL. Go back to philosophy class and leave the officiating to someone else.
You clearly have no concept of what an official is on the court for.

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

You’re much better when you stick to your one liner schtick.

 

[unIowa]

1) "Neither I nor these refs know what a foul is": That is because a foul is not and cannot be defined. It is entirely subjective.

2) "I just want consistency": It can't exist. In the history of basketball, no two plays have ever been the same. Each play is unique in its details. No (see Illinois game thread), Iowa did not in fact make "that same steal" earlier. They made a unique play.

3) "These refs are for <insert opponent>": Meanwhile, on opponent's board, "These refs are for Iowa".

Sure, there are good and bad refs, and good and bad calls, and in fact good and bad overall called games. But, I'd trust the ref with 30 years experience and on the court 100 times as much as I'd trust me or you watching on TV when our jobs are something other than officiating.

Just let it be.

 

[LaQuintaHawkeye]

But, I'd trust the ref with 30 years experience

Sorry, I'm siding with this guy...

"It's an Absolute Disgrace for People to Steal BB games." The officials "deserve to be in jail."
-Lute Olson, March 8, 1982


LINK: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/0...ining-about-college-basketball/8252384411600/

 

[SSG T]

No. There is no rule that truly defines a "foul". It says "Illegal contact", which, of course, is self-defining ("a foul is 'illegal contact', when "illegal contact" is not (and cannot be) defined).

Rule 10, Article 2

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is
only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt
to play the ball.

A defender can't contact a ball handler with his hand unless the contact is on the ballhandler's hand which is in contact with the ball.

Rule 10, Article 4

Art. 4. The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a player with
the ball:
a. Keeping a hand or forearm on an opponent;
b. Putting two hands on an opponent;
c. Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm(s) and placing a
hand or forearm on the opponent; and
d. Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler.


Putting two hands on an opponent is a foul. It is defined specifically.


Both of those are very cut and dried. You touch a ball handler with your hand, you are fouling them. If you put two hands on them for any reason or any amount of time, it's a foul.

 

[markfromj]

LOL. Go back to philosophy class and leave the officiating to someone else.
You clearly have no concept of what an official is on the court for.

Will you educate me, then? What is an official on the court for?

 

[markfromj]

Rule 10, Article 2

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is
only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt
to play the ball.

A defender can't contact a ball handler with his hand unless the contact is on the ballhandler's hand which is in contact with the ball.

Rule 10, Article 4

Art. 4. The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a player with
the ball:
a. Keeping a hand or forearm on an opponent;
b. Putting two hands on an opponent;
c. Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm(s) and placing a
hand or forearm on the opponent; and
d. Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler.


Putting two hands on an opponent is a foul. It is defined specifically.


Both of those are very cut and dried. You touch a ball handler with you hand, you are fouling them. If you put two hands on any player for any reason or any amount of time, it's a foul.

Thanks for finding and posting this. I could not find.

But c'mon, that definition of a "foul" left basketball 50 years ago, I bet. Now, maybe it should not have, but no game is called even close to that standard, and has not been for years.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Rule 10, Article 2

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is
only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt
to play the ball.

A defender can't contact a ball handler with his hand unless the contact is on the ballhandler's hand which is in contact with the ball.

Rule 10, Article 4

Art. 4. The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a player with
the ball:
a. Keeping a hand or forearm on an opponent;
b. Putting two hands on an opponent;
c. Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm(s) and placing a
hand or forearm on the opponent; and
d. Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler.


Putting two hands on an opponent is a foul. It is defined specifically.


Both of those are very cut and dried. You touch a ball handler with your hand, you are fouling them. If you put two hands on them for any reason or any amount of time, it's a foul.

I think this thread is over....

 

[TailgateTom]

Thanks for finding and posting this. I could not find.

But c'mon, that definition of a "foul" left basketball 50 years ago, I bet. Now, maybe it should not have, but no game is called even close to that standard, and has not been for years.

In other words, officials aren't consistent with the rules, thus the gripes about officiating are legitimate.

 

[unIowa]

Thanks for finding and posting this. I could not find.

But c'mon, that definition of a "foul" left basketball 50 years ago, I bet. Now, maybe it should not have, but no game is called even close to that standard, and has not been for years.

Please stop.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Thanks for finding and posting this. I could not find.

But c'mon, that definition of a "foul" left basketball 50 years ago, I bet (Don't bet. In time, you could become an addict.). Now, maybe it should not have, but no game is called even close to that standard, and has not been for years.

Lol, well it's not like everybody is blameless for that happening..........

 

[Pepperman]

By the actual definition of a foul, nobody could play basketball as it is played today. Literally, the game is out of control relative to what the origin of the game was meant to be. So, I actually think the OP has a point here. It is all subjective, but that doesn't mean that we can't complain about the calls here or there, and it also doesn't mean that all officials are "equal" because of the subjectivity involved.

 

[markfromj]

In other words, officials aren't consistent with the rules, thus the gripes about officiating are legitimate.

No. I would say that, relative to the posted definition of a foul, officials have been consistent for decades in ignoring that definition.

 

[TailgateTom]

No. I would say that, relative to the posted definition of a foul, officials have been consistent for decades in ignoring that definition.

Lol. Okay.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Hi, mark, it's EvilMonkey again. Let's talk.

1) "Neither I nor these refs know what a foul is": (Apparently, you missed where I said, "I know what a foul is.......Apparently the refs don't."

And I would never lie to an Iowa fan, right mark? )

That is because a foul is not and cannot be defined. (Well, we certainly disproved that above, now didn't we.) It is entirely subjective. (It most certainly is not, sir.)

2) "I just want consistency": It can't exist. (More lies lol...) In the history of basketball, no two plays have ever been the same. (What about a free throw attempt?......) Each play is unique in its details. (Ummm........okay. In a sense, this is existentially true. But as far as the rules of the game, they do a pretty good job of covering every aspect of the game.......) No (see Illinois game thread), Iowa did not in fact make "that same steal" earlier. They made a unique play. (Fart noises.)

3) "These refs are for <insert opponent>": (Well, they are.......if we're talking about Duke, Kansas, Michigan State or Wisconsin.) Meanwhile, on opponent's board, "These refs are for Iowa". (Well that's because of two reasons:
- Gilligan aka dragonhawk does his best to annoy other people so much that they willingly root against Iowa just to make him mad....
- Iowa usually does a good job of getting to the FT line because they like to play up-tempo and attack. So they'll often shoot more FTs than their opponent, and some fans get rather salty about that......and some coaches too.

Of course, when Iowa magically stops getting to the FT line despite still trying to drive and push the ball up the floor, we as fans begin to question, well......what in the actual f*** is going on.)

Sure, there are good and bad refs, and good and bad calls, and in fact good and bad overall called games. But, I'd trust the ref with 30 years experience and on the court 100 times as much as I'd trust me or you watching on TV when our jobs are something other than officiating. (Why would you only trust that ref "as much"?.....Why not more? )

Just let it be.

 

[perryhawk]

1) "Neither I nor these refs know what a foul is": That is because a foul is not and cannot be defined. It is entirely subjective.

2) "I just want consistency": It can't exist. In the history of basketball, no two plays have ever been the same. Each play is unique in its details. No (see Illinois game thread), Iowa did not in fact make "that same steal" earlier. They made a unique play.

3) "These refs are for <insert opponent>": Meanwhile, on opponent's board, "These refs are for Iowa".

Sure, there are good and bad refs, and good and bad calls, and in fact good and bad overall called games. But, I'd trust the ref with 30 years experience and on the court 100 times as much as I'd trust me or you watching on TV when our jobs are something other than officiating.

Just let it be.

Early in the game Illinois lobbed the ball inside to their PF....He clearly touched the ball before it went out of bounds. The official called it off of an Iowa player and gave the ball to Illinois. In my opinion that was a bad call or a missed call.

Do you have a gripe, about my gripe, with that bit of officiating.....

 

[Chishawk1425]

The refs were atrocious yesterday, period. And they failed miserably at the end of the game to diffuse the issues on the court and allow our players to be mugged which led to the issues in the handshake line. They were terrible, period.

 

[pocha444444]

My biggest gripe about other people's gripes is when I hear people complain that not enough fouls are being called. That is the complete opposite of the problem. It just blows my mind to think that there are actually people walking amongst me that want to see more whistles in college basketball.

 

[StarHawk]

I can understand missed calls...things happen quickly and officials can easily miss something or think they saw something that wasn't.

What I never have cared for is the Official that goes along with the home crowd on everything...gutless to make the right call if it gets them booed.

What I'd really like to see, stop letting players getting away with swatting at balls over the back of guys that have rebound position which usually ends up the ball going out of bounds and officials looking bewildered as to who's ball it is....really?...is it that hard to figure out the player over the back swatting caused the ball to go out?

 

[markfromj]

Early in the game Illinois lobbed the ball inside to their PF....He clearly touched the ball before it went out of bounds. The official called it off of an Iowa player and gave the ball to Illinois. In my opinion that was a bad call or a missed call.

Do you have a gripe, about my gripe, with that bit of officiating.....

No.

 

[iahawks10]

So help me out OP (or anyone), because I’ve been stuck on this one for a day now. When a player with possession of the ball jumps for a shot (feet leave the ground), then the player loses control of the ball and comes back to the ground regaining control of the ball. What is that called or is it a legal play?

Refs miss calls every game. Sometimes those missed calls favor one team more than the other. People tend to get upset. Also, many fans don’t know the rules and get upset at what they believe should be called. I don’t think there are many dishonest officials as much as it’s the quality of officiating. The game is fast and we have the benefit if multiple camera angles, replay, and slow motion. They have one shot at it and not always the best look. For example yesterday, the ball is clearly hit out of bounds by Benghazi (pretty sure it was him) and they ruled it Illinois ball. (The play Perry is referencing) Sure 10,000 fans in the general vicinity saw it go off of Illinois, but the three who were there to decide that, didn’t see it that way. Replay showed that the fans were correct, but unfortunately there’s nothing they could do about it besides speak their frustrations on the internet.

I don’t care one minute about complaining about officiating. They make pretty good money to officiate a sport and be as accurate as a weatherman. If my postings offend or annoy anyone feel free to utilize the ignore feature I guess.

 

[Ronman]

Rule 10, Article 2

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is
only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt
to play the ball.

A defender can't contact a ball handler with his hand unless the contact is on the ballhandler's hand which is in contact with the ball.

Rule 10, Article 4

Art. 4. The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a player with
the ball:
a. Keeping a hand or forearm on an opponent;
b. Putting two hands on an opponent;
c. Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm(s) and placing a
hand or forearm on the opponent; and
d. Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler.


Putting two hands on an opponent is a foul. It is defined specifically.


Both of those are very cut and dried. You touch a ball handler with your hand, you are fouling them. If you put two hands on them for any reason or any amount of time, it's a foul.

Now post the rule that applies to carrying the ball.

 

[markfromj]

So help me out OP (or anyone), because I’ve been stuck on this one for a day now. When a player with possession of the ball jumps for a shot (feet leave the ground), then the player loses control of the ball and comes back to the ground regaining control of the ball. What is that called or is it a legal play?

I don’t care one minute about complaining about officiating. They make pretty good money to officiate a sport and be as accurate as a weatherman. If my postings offend or annoy anyone feel free to utilize the ignore feature I guess.

I would think that would be traveling. I understand they missed that one.

Officiating complaints don't really "offend or annoy" me, but I just find them so celebratory of victim status, and I think the seeking of victim status is so sad.

 

[markfromj]

Hi, mark, it's EvilMonkey again. Let's talk.

Well, I should be more clear: A poster did indeed disprove my claim that a foul cannot be defined.

But, what I still believe is that that definition of a foul was abandoned decades ago, and that, today, in practice, a foul is not defined.

 

[Hendy hawk]

Rule 10, Article 2

Art. 2. A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is
only with the opponent’s hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt
to play the ball.

A defender can't contact a ball handler with his hand unless the contact is on the ballhandler's hand which is in contact with the ball.

Rule 10, Article 4

Art. 4. The following acts constitute a foul when committed against a player with
the ball:
a. Keeping a hand or forearm on an opponent;
b. Putting two hands on an opponent;
c. Continually jabbing an opponent by extending an arm(s) and placing a
hand or forearm on the opponent; and
d. Using an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler.


Putting two hands on an opponent is a foul. It is defined specifically.


Both of those are very cut and dried. You touch a ball handler with your hand, you are fouling them. If you put two hands on them for any reason or any amount of time, it's a foul.

This should be shown to every coach and player.
Basketball is so far from where it began & was intended.
Basketball > Bullyball to me over the yrs
Used to be no contact sport of skill
Not anymore

 

[unIowa]

Early in the game Illinois lobbed the ball inside to their PF....He clearly touched the ball before it went out of bounds. The official called it off of an Iowa player and gave the ball to Illinois. In my opinion that was a bad call or a missed call.

Do you have a gripe, about my gripe, with that bit of officiating.....

"That is because an out of bounds call is not and cannot be defined. It is entirely subjective." - OP (probably)

 

[markfromj]

"That is because an out of bounds call is not and cannot be defined. It is entirely subjective." - OP (probably)

Please see my response above, indicating I have no problem with that particular gripe.

 

[youflog1hawk]

This should be shown to every coach and player.
Basketball is so far from where it began & was intended.
Basketball > Bullyball to me over the yrs
Used to be no contact sport of skill
Not anymore

Just read the Illinois coaches objective to defend Garza. Up front with it. The last three games have been brutal. Bully ball for sure
and It’s pathetic.

 

[H4wkfan4life]

1) "Neither I nor these refs know what a foul is": That is because a foul is not and cannot be defined. It is entirely subjective.

2) "I just want consistency": It can't exist. In the history of basketball, no two plays have ever been the same. Each play is unique in its details. No (see Illinois game thread), Iowa did not in fact make "that same steal" earlier. They made a unique play.

3) "These refs are for <insert opponent>": Meanwhile, on opponent's board, "These refs are for Iowa".

Sure, there are good and bad refs, and good and bad calls, and in fact good and bad overall called games. But, I'd trust the ref with 30 years experience and on the court 100 times as much as I'd trust me or you watching on TV when our jobs are something other than officiating.

Just let it be.

You couldn't even make if through your 1st point without looking dumb. I quit reading after that

 

[EagleHawk]

Just read the Illinois coaches objective to defend Garza. Up front with it. The last three games have been brutal. Bully ball for sure
and It’s pathetic.

And when he gets fed up with it, and starts posting up a little more aggressively, they call the foul on him

 

[walleye hunter16]

My biggest gripe about other people's gripes is when I hear people complain that not enough fouls are being called. That is the complete opposite of the problem. It just blows my mind to think that there are actually people walking amongst me that want to see more whistles in college basketball.

So its better to let players break the rules and impede other players so you don't have to see fouls. LOL.
Thats like not wanting to deal with people that break laws because its too much work so we should just let them break more and ignore the results.

 

[pocha444444]

So its better to let players break the rules and impede other players so you don't have to see fouls. LOL.
Thats like not wanting to deal with people that break laws because its too much work so we should just let them break more and ignore the results.

Nope, I just want them to call fouls that are fouls and nothing more. Currently they call most contact a foul, in addition to about five or more phantom calls each game.

Also, apostrophes are your friend.

 

[markfromj]

You couldn't even make if through your 1st point without looking dumb. I quit reading after that

Yeah, sorry about that. What I meant was, "The existing definition of a foul has been ignored for decades".