RE: Re: Another Weird Shot

[Richmond, Dean]

In watching the UK-Utah game yesterday, the announcers commented on Rick
Majeras being "at least 10 feet out of the coaching box" and yet no
technical was called. Granted he was yelling instructions to his team and
not screaming at the refs, but the rules are the rules.... well maybe!?
Clearly the ref's excuse for pitching Huggs (out of the coaching box) was
weak at best. This happens in almost every game. I say, be enough of a man
to state the truth.... "I threw him out because he was too eager to point
out my incompetence". 

Dean Richmond



-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sherrick [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:03 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: RE: [UC Basketball] Re: Another Weird Shot


On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Wedinger, Keith wrote:

> I agree with Brad here.  This is the same crew that quickly tagged Huggs
> with a technical the minute he stepped foot outside the coaching box.  I
> don't believe there is such a thing as waving off a rules violation when
no
> advantage is gained.
>
>
> J. Keith Wedinger
> Bearcatnews.com
> Sciotofootball.com

Hmmm.  I think you guys have brought me around to your point of view.
Almost.  The throwing of the helmet in the Browns game was a good analogy.

I suppose it depends on how the rule for the technical actually reads.  If
there is some room for discretion, then perhaps the technical shouldn't
have been called.  But if there is no discretion, like in the helmet case,
it should.


Mike in Newfoundland

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Holdheide [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:06 PM
> To: 'address@hidden'
>
> "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

Mike Sherrick
address@hidden