| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9632
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/31/24 3:55 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| tahoma17 wrote: |
Replying to Aces' comment (quoted below) at 9:52 p.m. (March 29, 2024)
"The opposing bench probably complained."
Frankly, that seems like cheap-shot speculation, without any evidence whatsoever. Without any evidence, it is really unfair and demeaning to Oregon State. |
Oregon State may have had players who took their's out due to an "extra focus during the Sweet Sixteen" on that stuff, as is said the NCAA was doing for some reason.
|
|
osubeavers
Joined: 07 Jan 2017
Posts: 277
Location: West Hills, Portland, OR
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/01/24 3:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| tahoma17 wrote: |
Replying to Aces' comment (quoted below) at 9:52 p.m. (March 29, 2024)
"The opposing bench probably complained."
Frankly, that seems like cheap-shot speculation, without any evidence whatsoever. Without any evidence, it is really unfair and demeaning to Oregon State. |
Oregon State may have had players who took their's out due to an "extra focus during the Sweet Sixteen" on that stuff, as is said the NCAA was doing for some reason. |
Scott said neither he or his staff or players had anything to do with the refs decision. I believe him. It’s not how he rolls.
_________________
Stepping out of a triangle into striped light - Everything is wrong, at the same time it's RIGHT!
|
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/24 11:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Ex-Ref, I'm curious why your take below regarding the moving screen call doesn't apply to the Hidalgo situation. How do you see these situations as different?
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
This whole notion of "let the players decide the game, not the refs" is a huge, stinking pile of BS.
If we're going to allow one team to not play by the rules, why play the game??? |
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/24 5:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
Ex-Ref, I'm curious why your take below regarding the moving screen call doesn't apply to the Hidalgo situation. How do you see these situations as different?
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
This whole notion of "let the players decide the game, not the refs" is a huge, stinking pile of BS.
If we're going to allow one team to not play by the rules, why play the game??? |
|
Difference is that in the Hidalgo situation she, (as well as other players), had been allowed to wear it all year. And she had been told by the official that had talked to her about it that all she had to do was cover it.
I agree that it is the rule and I would have had no problem with it being enforced during the year. But to do it AFTER the game has started when she had been told it was OK, is poor officiating.
Can you imagine if illegal screens had been allowed all year and never been called? The before the game Edwards being told that she could continue to set them only to be surprised with this call with 3 seconds to go? I would have bitched about that too.
These are two really different situations. Also, the Hidalgo piercing did not give her an advantage over Oregon St. Taking her off of the floor did give an advantage to Oregon St.
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
ThreeBall25
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 2791
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/07/24 8:14 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| singinerd54 wrote: |
Ex-Ref, I'm curious why your take below regarding the moving screen call doesn't apply to the Hidalgo situation. How do you see these situations as different?
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
This whole notion of "let the players decide the game, not the refs" is a huge, stinking pile of BS.
If we're going to allow one team to not play by the rules, why play the game??? |
|
Difference is that in the Hidalgo situation she, (as well as other players), had been allowed to wear it all year. And she had been told by the official that had talked to her about it that all she had to do was cover it.
I agree that it is the rule and I would have had no problem with it being enforced during the year. But to do it AFTER the game has started when she had been told it was OK, is poor officiating.
Can you imagine if illegal screens had been allowed all year and never been called? The before the game Edwards being told that she could continue to set them only to be surprised with this call with 3 seconds to go? I would have bitched about that too.
These are two really different situations. Also, the Hidalgo piercing did not give her an advantage over Oregon St. Taking her off of the floor did give an advantage to Oregon St. |
I agree that that was an(other) example of poor officiating and that the piercing did not give her an advantage.
The problem comes with the slippery slope/double standard of enforce this rule but not that rule and whether inconsistency of calls over the year is different than inconsistency of calls within games (e.g., "they haven't called it all year, how can they start now" versus "if it was a moving screen, they should call a moving screen, even if they haven't called all moving screens/offensive fouls this game").
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8949
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/07/24 9:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| singinerd54 wrote: |
Ex-Ref, I'm curious why your take below regarding the moving screen call doesn't apply to the Hidalgo situation. How do you see these situations as different?
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
This whole notion of "let the players decide the game, not the refs" is a huge, stinking pile of BS.
If we're going to allow one team to not play by the rules, why play the game??? |
|
Difference is that in the Hidalgo situation she, (as well as other players), had been allowed to wear it all year. And she had been told by the official that had talked to her about it that all she had to do was cover it.
I agree that it is the rule and I would have had no problem with it being enforced during the year. But to do it AFTER the game has started when she had been told it was OK, is poor officiating.
Can you imagine if illegal screens had been allowed all year and never been called? The before the game Edwards being told that she could continue to set them only to be surprised with this call with 3 seconds to go? I would have bitched about that too.
These are two really different situations. Also, the Hidalgo piercing did not give her an advantage over Oregon St. Taking her off of the floor did give an advantage to Oregon St. |
I agree that that was an(other) example of poor officiating and that the piercing did not give her an advantage.
The problem comes with the slippery slope/double standard of enforce this rule but not that rule and whether inconsistency of calls over the year is different than inconsistency of calls within games (e.g., "they haven't called it all year, how can they start now" versus "if it was a moving screen, they should call a moving screen, even if they haven't called all moving screens/offensive fouls this game"). |
There's no slippery slope. No double standard.
You've got two rules that have been consistently (as consistently as possible with hundreds of people applying them) applied through an entire season.
One is consistent to the end of the game and the other was changed 10 minutes into the game. (After communication that it would not be changed.)
_________________
"Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
|
|
