RE: Re: Another Weird Shot

[Brad Holdheide]

"Actually, I thought the decision not to call a technical was sensible."

I disagree.  There are many times throughout the game that players don't
intend to do things. But rules are rules.  I'm sure Lenny didn't intend to
travel or I'm sure Max didn't intend to foul.  

i.e. Browns football game last year where the player took off his helmet
while on the field.  It didn't delay the game or hurt anyone yet he was
called for the penalty and the Browns ended up losing on the extra play New
England received.

Rules are rules.  Without them it would just be anarchy.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sherrick [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 12:40 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Re: Another Weird Shot


On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 address@hidden wrote:

> Funny you should mention THAT shot, Richard...I didn't realize it had gone
> into the basket and wondered why the refs didn't call Turiaf (the intended
> recipient) for going over Flowers (?) back.  Secondly, how could they not
> give Violette a technical for either delay of game or bad sportsmanship
for
> picking up the dead ball and emphatically dunking it!  On top of that, did
> they ever reset the clock, as it appeared nobody realized the lob had gone
in
> and kept the clock running.

Actually, I thought the decision not to call a technical was sensible.
The dunk was clearly not showboating, nor was it intented to delay the
game, both of which would have been clear grounds for a technical.  For
once, the officials interpreted a rule intelligently, though perhaps not
literally.

Mike in Newfoundland


> As Leo Durocher once said "wait 'til next year!!"  and I can't
>
> Go 'Cats
> Richard Litt '68

Mike Sherrick
address@hidden