PDA

View Full Version : Did Memphis' Douglas-Roberts deserve a technical...



Soonerus
4/8/2008, 10:43 PM
...when he slammed the ball to the ground near the end of regulation last night ? I can see it both ways...

Ash
4/8/2008, 10:46 PM
yes....no....maybe....I can see three ways.

Soonerus
4/8/2008, 10:46 PM
Any other situation it is a T....

Collier11
4/8/2008, 10:48 PM
No, the ref showed great restraint in that he realized that CDR acted inappropriately but he was doing it out of self frustration and not to show up anyone or cus he was mad at the ref. I am sure the ref had a word for him which is fine with me

Ash
4/8/2008, 10:53 PM
I agree with Collier. The ref's did a good job of being aware of the situation and not blindly following the book.

Soonerus
4/8/2008, 10:56 PM
If a T would have been called it would likely have decided the game so I can't really blame Hightower for swallowing his whistle....

Ash
4/8/2008, 11:00 PM
With all of his theatrics, one day Hightower really is going to swallow his whistle.

Soonerus
4/8/2008, 11:08 PM
He has been impacting games for a long time, this could have been his crescendo...

sooner518
4/8/2008, 11:37 PM
I thought he should have. Ive never seen that not get called and dont see why that was exception. If its done on purpose by a player after the whistle, what does it matter if he was mad at himself?

Soonerus
4/8/2008, 11:42 PM
On balance given all of the facts and circumstances, I think the no-call was the better decision...

Collier11
4/8/2008, 11:44 PM
I thought he should have. Ive never seen that not get called and dont see why that was exception. If its done on purpose by a player after the whistle, what does it matter if he was mad at himself?

IF you watch it right after he did it he went in the direction of the ref and appeared to apologize or explain himself...I think that is why it wasnt called and as I said I agree. You dont impact the end of a natl title game on a technical foul on a judgment call as to what his intent was

crawfish
4/9/2008, 07:26 AM
No. The game should be decided on the court, not by some flash of emotion.

GrapevineSooner
4/9/2008, 07:31 AM
That's one instance where I don't mind if the refs use situational officiating. Plus, he wasn't upset with a call, he was upset with himself.

Reminds me of the ridiculouse tech Kelvin got against Duke in December of 2004 at MSG when he slammed his hand against the scorer's table because OU botched a possession.

TopDawg
4/9/2008, 10:01 AM
You dont impact the end of a natl title game on a technical foul on a judgment call as to what his intent was

But on the flip side, if that action IS worthy of a technical but the refs don't call it and Kansas doesn't get to shoot the technical foul shots and they lose in regulation, doesn't that impact the end of a national title game on a technical foul judgment call based on what his intent was? They're saying "That should be a technical, but his intent wasn't bad, so we won't call it. Impact: KU doesn't get to shoot the free throws and they lose."

Just sayin...I agree that they shouldn't have called it, but not for the same reason you said. You're implying that a "no-call" doesn't impact the game, but it certainly does.

cheezyq
4/9/2008, 10:22 AM
Considering the ****-poor job the officials have been doing of enforcing most of the rules this year, I'm not sure that it really would have affected the outcome of the game.

Side note - Bobby Knight commented during pregame about the decline in officiating the last couple of years. Unfortunately he got lost in his angry senility before he could make a valid point, and his only "example" ended up being something about how he hates the walking rule and wants it changed. The poor guy has yelled so much during his career that he's popped nearly all the blood vessels that carry oxygen to his brain.

Collier11
4/9/2008, 10:47 AM
But on the flip side, if that action IS worthy of a technical but the refs don't call it and Kansas doesn't get to shoot the technical foul shots and they lose in regulation, doesn't that impact the end of a national title game on a technical foul judgment call based on what his intent was? They're saying "That should be a technical, but his intent wasn't bad, so we won't call it. Impact: KU doesn't get to shoot the free throws and they lose."

Just sayin...I agree that they shouldn't have called it, but not for the same reason you said. You're implying that a "no-call" doesn't impact the game, but it certainly does.

Exactly, if it WAS worthy they needed to call it but I am glad they didnt and they shouldnt have. I do disagree that the no-call does impact the game because it shouldnt have been a call IMHO therefore it has no affect on the game.

As far as intent goes, I think most refs call T's based off of intent...why do you think they let some coaches (who have earned respect) to run their mouths until they say the "wrong thing"

SoonerBBall
4/9/2008, 11:48 AM
Exactly
As far as intent goes, I think most refs call T's based off of intent...why do you think they let some coaches (who have earned respect) to run their mouths until they say the "wrong thing"

I disagree. An intentional foul is a foul that should be called based on intent, thus the name. In my opinion, all the fouling done in the last minute of the game should be called for what it is, but that is another discussion.

A technical foul is one that penalizes unsportsmanlike non-contact behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_foul). Since slamming the ball on the ground for any reason has always been classified as unsportsmanlike non-contact behavior, then it should have been called no matter what. I hate it when announcers talk about "good no-calls" because there isn't any such thing. If it is a foul at the beginning of a game then it is a foul at the end of game and at any point in between.

Collier11
4/9/2008, 11:53 AM
A good no call is when the ref uses discretion and I agree in some situations

Civicus_Sooner
4/9/2008, 12:01 PM
If it's a tech in the first game of the season, it should be one in the last game too.

Ash
4/9/2008, 12:01 PM
I disagree. An intentional foul is a foul that should be called based on intent, thus the name. In my opinion, all the fouling done in the last minute of the game should be called for what it is, but that is another discussion.

A technical foul is one that penalizes unsportsmanlike non-contact behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_foul). Since slamming the ball on the ground for any reason has always been classified as unsportsmanlike non-contact behavior, then it should have been called no matter what. I hate it when announcers talk about "good no-calls" because there isn't any such thing. If it is a foul at the beginning of a game then it is a foul at the end of game and at any point in between.

Both are good points. I'd say in this case, though, there is some judgement involved. The refs have to keep in mind the fact that it was a very intense game for high stakes played on a national stage. Emotions are going to run high at that point. You've got to ask yourself if somebody showing some of that emotion, but not directed at anyone or for the purpose of showing somebody up, is in fact unsportsmanlike.

Collier11
4/9/2008, 12:09 PM
If it's a tech in the first game of the season, it should be one in the last game too.

Missing the point, when it comes to unsportsmanlike behavior it is up to the Ref to determine. In this case, based on the situation and the intent the Ref decided it was not an appropriate call.

Let me ask those of you who disagree this, what if the coach mad at his team and slams his hand against the scorers table which happens all the time. IF the ref sees it and realizes it wasnt directed at the refs or the others teams players, he is not going to call that. Remember when Coach Capel got the T for yelling at his own player, how many of you agreed with that?

badger
4/9/2008, 02:11 PM
In the end it really didn't matter :D

Statalyzer
4/9/2008, 04:34 PM
What deserved a technical more was Joey Dorsey grabbing the ball and running to the FT line with it after throwing down a dunk. Players are not supposed to mess with the ball after their team makes a shot, but unfortunately refs let this go all the time without a warning even when it delays a team's inbounding. Often it doesn't, but when a player picks it up, turns around, and runs a couple of steps with it, that's going too far.

stoopified
4/9/2008, 08:06 PM
Should have been called.I guarantee you it would have been called against us regardless of the circumstances.

Eielson
4/9/2008, 09:18 PM
It was definately NOT deserving of a technical. Usually when somebody slams a ball down it is deserving of a technical foul but usually they slam the ball down for different reasons. Does somebody who slaps his chair with a towel as he goes to sit on the bench get a technical?

OUmillenium
4/10/2008, 03:38 AM
What a bunch of liberal apologists!

He slammed the ball and should have gotten a tech. And I was FOR Memphis.

I coach my players to stay under control. Maybe if Memphis was coached that way they could have held onto a lead and been mentally tough enough to make clutch FTs.

Collier11
4/10/2008, 06:01 AM
What a bunch of liberal apologists!

He slammed the ball and should have gotten a tech. And I was FOR Memphis.

I coach my players to stay under control. Maybe if Memphis was coached that way they could have held onto a lead and been mentally tough enough to make clutch FTs.

Wrong!

Ash
4/10/2008, 09:13 AM
Wrong!

Pansy liberal pinko! :rolleyes:


;)

Collier11
4/10/2008, 09:16 AM
Pansy liberal pinko! :rolleyes:


;)

Pinko! Now youve gone too far!!! :mad: :mad:




:D :D

Eielson
4/10/2008, 02:27 PM
What a bunch of liberal apologists!

He slammed the ball and should have gotten a tech. And I was FOR Memphis.

I coach my players to stay under control. Maybe if Memphis was coached that way they could have held onto a lead and been mentally tough enough to make clutch FTs.

I'm sure if you were the coach instead of Calipari they would have went 40-0.

OUmillenium
4/14/2008, 10:55 AM
I'm sure if you were the coach instead of Calipari they would have went 40-0.

Nope, no way I could recruit the talent that Cal can get.

sooner518
4/14/2008, 03:07 PM
Im trying to understand A) how you know that he was "only mad at himself" and B) more importantly, why that is relevant.

As long as I've played or watched basketball, intentionally slamming the ball on the floor and letting it bounce up high as always been a technical. I've never seen it not been called a technical. The intent was there. His "reasons" for doing it are irrelevant. Call it the same at the end of the national championship game as you would in the first quarter of a pre-season exhibition game.

Eielson
4/15/2008, 07:12 PM
Nope, no way I could recruit the talent that Cal can get.

Yes, for good reason.