F*** These Refs

[t-noah]

I think this is partly a problem within officiating crews where you have different officials at different places depending on the side. If your partner is making calls a certain way for hand checks high out front, you should ideally be trying to maintain consistency on the other side when you are watching for it.

This is why I think we need to go to technology based team officiating...

Let's change the game entirely and have more eyes, with better positioning that can consistently call the game from end to end without having to "keep up" with the kids that are 1/2 to 1/3 their age. We're living in an age where you can do almost EVERYTHING remotely. Why not officiating?

Ever since they went to 3 refs the games have been called worse! I’m surprised we had anybody left to play the way we were treated by the refs!

Interesting observation (3 refs). I had to look it up. Seems like they went to 3 refs in 1975 (only 2 prior to this). Long time ago now.

Maybe with the frequent complaining about officiating, perceived discrepancies favoring one team or the other, coupled with a lack of enough competent and/or younger refs coming up, we should go back to two refs?

How about using two live-game refs, along with a "remote ref"? A remote ref or refs, would also be in a position to see the game flow, consult with live-game officials, make adjustments. The object would be fairly called, more consistent officiating.

To a certain extent they do some of this now in sports, remote consultation (NFL, MLB, etc.), The technology is available. Any remote officiating would have a goal to keep the 'flow' of the game and with minimal replays. Adjusting some of the situations where replays could be used also seems needed.

Are games that much better officiated with 3 refs (since 1975) versus only 2 refs (pre-1975)?

 

[t-noah]

Nadolny totally flopped on the Kunc foul. That was a terrible call. Jones on the loose ball was a complete ticky tack.

Even though I think the foul discrepancy was more caused by the two teams very different shot selection and aggression, it was a poorly officiated game.

I almost think these "points of emphasis" that come up through the year make things worse. It's a good intent, but it seems these things just get called so radically different and inconsistently.

In the end, officials are not very good these days. The game is too fast, and they can't keep up. Reality seems to be that being overly aggressive works, and having your coach constantly working officials, ... sadly this just has to be something coaches have to do.

Reality seems to be that being overly aggressive works, and having your coach constantly working officials, ... sadly this just has to be something coaches have to do.
This part here is something I think we should try hard to avoid. I hope we don't just shrug our shoulders and admit that this is is now status quo. That would be a bad direction for basketball!

 

[VeloClone]

Interesting observation (3 refs). I had to look it up. Seems like they went to 3 refs in 1975 (only 2 prior to this). Long time ago now.

Maybe with the frequent complaining about officiating, perceived discrepancies favoring one team or the other, coupled with a lack of enough competent and/or younger refs coming up, we should go back to two refs?

How about using two live-game refs, along with a "remote ref"? A remote ref or refs, would also be in a position to see the game flow, consult with live-game officials, make adjustments. The object would be fairly called, more consistent officiating.

To a certain extent they do some of this now in sports, remote consultation (NFL, MLB, etc.), The technology is available. Any remote officiating would have a goal to keep the 'flow' of the game and with minimal replays. Adjusting some of the situations where replays could be used also seems needed.

Are games that much better officiated with 3 refs (since 1975) versus only 2 refs (pre-1975)?

There was no shot clock back then. The game has gotten just faster and faster. Going to 3 refs was a good thing. I shudder to imagine today's game with only 2 refs. You think it is bad now, imagine two fewer eyes trying to take in the speed and athleticism of today's game.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

2 refs had become a disaster at the high school level, I can't imagine how bad it would be at the Division I level.

The game is REALLY fast and these guys have to make calls with no reaction time. It's crazy they get as many right as they do.

If you think they have time to blow the whistle, figure out what team is playing, what building they're in and what some league 'overlord' wants them to call, you're nuts.

See it. Blow it. Call it. Sell it.

Communicate with coaches outside the moment. 'Hey coach, I might have missed that one'. They appreciate the honesty and you have no idea how hard high level officials are on themselves. Most of them spend halftime and a good half hour after the game watching calls back that they were unsure of.

 

[Cyforce]

This film needs to studied over and over. Tech was by far the more physical grabby team but the bulk of the fouls went against us. We need to get back to playing tough D that doesn't draw tons of fouls.

 

[VeloClone]

This game just reinforces my worry about West Virginia despite them not being what they have been in the past. A team that plays uber physical coupled with a coach that works the officials starting in pre-game warmups just seems to spell disaster for a team like ours.

 

[blutarsky]

Tech was by far the more physical grabby team but the bulk of the fouls went against us. We need to get back to playing tough D that doesn't draw tons of fouls.

I thought Iowa State was trying to match Tech's physicality. In doing so they lost composure and drew some cheap calls. Especially in the 2nd half.

My only gripe about officiating... It HAS to be consistent. It wasn't. That's a problem.

 

[cyclones500]

This game just reinforces my worry about West Virginia despite them not being what they have been in the past. A team that plays uber physical coupled with a coach that works the officials starting in pre-game warmups just seems to spell disaster for a team like ours.

I have that hunch, too ... in some ways, I feel more confident with this ISU team vs. "high-scoring/iffy defense" teams instead of grinder-at-both-ends. Exceptions, of course, we could get shredded on 3's or get caught up too much into fast-pace and turnovers get out of control.

 

[t-noah]

This game just reinforces my worry about West Virginia despite them not being what they have been in the past. A team that plays uber physical coupled with a coach that works the officials starting in pre-game warmups just seems to spell disaster for a team like ours.

Take Me Home, Country Roads
John Denver
[Chorus]
Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong don't belong
West Virginia, mountain mama Papa (HuggyBear)
Take me home, country roads

So looking forward to WV. Not. I shudder to think that college BB is becoming more like HuggyBall rather than less. Not good IMO.

Would love to beat WV 2x this year but that might be a tall order. We'll see if can adapt.

 

[Cyforce]

I thought Iowa State was trying to match Tech's physicality. In doing so they lost composure and drew some cheap calls. Especially in the 2nd half.

My only gripe about officiating... It HAS to be consistent. It wasn't. That's a problem.

That really wasn't the case, we did some really obvious tricky tack crap that was stupid. They played physical in your face like we have in the past.

 

[t-noah]

Interesting observation (3 refs). I had to look it up. Seems like they went to 3 refs in 1975 (only 2 prior to this). Long time ago now.

Maybe with the frequent complaining about officiating, perceived discrepancies favoring one team or the other, coupled with a lack of enough competent and/or younger refs coming up, we should go back to two refs?

How about using two live-game refs, along with a "remote ref"? A remote ref or refs, would also be in a position to see the game flow, consult with live-game officials, make adjustments. The object would be fairly called, more consistent officiating.

To a certain extent they do some of this now in sports, remote consultation (NFL, MLB, etc.), The technology is available. Any remote officiating would have a goal to keep the 'flow' of the game and with minimal replays. Adjusting some of the situations where replays could be used also seems needed.

Are games that much better officiated with 3 refs (since 1975) versus only 2 refs (pre-1975)?

There was no shot clock back then. The game has gotten just faster and faster. Going to 3 refs was a good thing. I shudder to imagine today's game with only 2 refs. You think it is bad now, imagine two fewer eyes trying to take in the speed and athleticism of today's game.

2 refs had become a disaster at the high school level, I can't imagine how bad it would be at the Division I level.

The game is REALLY fast and these guys have to make calls with no reaction time. It's crazy they get as many right as they do.

OK, well carrying on with the thought of maybe one 'remote official'... How about keep three live-game officials, and incorparate a remote (4th) official? The third live-game official could be (possibly) a younger, still in-training official, qualified but with less experience. That younger official, he or she, could 'inhabit' the mid-court area.

This would also help to train and bring up more officials. The overall officiating could then be 'moderated' somewhat by the remote official.

Just spit-balling now. But seems reasonable.

 

[singsing]

Tech went 6-15 and we went 14-19 in Ames.. They had 23 more attempts in Lubbock..I think we had 4 less? That's a 27 free throw swing..bs

 

[MisterO]

Tech went 6-15 and we went 14-19 in Ames.. They had 23 more attempts in Lubbock..I think we had 4 less? That's a 27 free throw swing..bs

Yes…but: as an athlete at that level, you have to overcome. You have to overcome a poor shooting night (which we had). You have to overcome an aggressive D(which they had). You have to overcome a loud crowd, poor officials, listless big men, and on and on and on. Pinning the difference of the game down to one convenient stat is disingenuous. There were lots of things we needed to overcome and we didn’t. Had we overcome just one of those areas, it’s a different game with maybe a different outcome. Bad officiating is part of that hill to climb and we didn’t get over it…and half of our fans never will either.

It’s like life: you’re going to get bad breaks. You can sit and cry about how unfair things are and lose, or you can overcome and win. Look what our football team did- I remember all the bellyaching about the refs against Texas every year. Then, we started kicking the crap out of those losers every year… suddenly the bad officiating went away too.

 

[singsing]

Yes…but: as an athlete at that level, you have to overcome. You have to overcome a poor shooting night (which we had). You have to overcome an aggressive D(which they had). You have to overcome a loud crowd, poor officials, listless big men, and on and on and on. Pinning the difference of the game down to one convenient stat is disingenuous. There were lots of things we needed to overcome and we didn’t. Had we overcome just one of those areas, it’s a different game with maybe a different outcome. Bad officiating is part of that hill to climb and we didn’t get over it…and half of our fans never will either.

It’s like life: you’re going to get bad breaks. You can sit and cry about how unfair things are and lose, or you can overcome and win. Look what our football team did- I remember all the bellyaching about the refs against Texas every year. Then, we started kicking the crap out of those losers every year… suddenly the bad officiating went away too.

 

[Wally86]

Not that it's any consolation.....but did anyone see the end of the KU/OU game? The league is back to if it's close.........KU wins. I don't know the KU player.....but in crunch time, he carries the ball, then just loses out of bounds on a drive in front of Higgins and Higgins just gives it back.

Had to get it in between 2-3 minutes so it didn’t get reviewed

 

[Wally86]

I'm starting from a place of believing the refs intend to call a game fairly. I can't think of any reason why they officials would intentionally benefit Tech over us.

So with that baseline, I think it becomes incumbent upon us to figure out how a game is being officiated. They were allowing for hand-checking out top, but they were calling contact down low. You have to see that and start forcing the issue. You have to be able to figure out how a game is being called and adjust. We were content floating around 15-25 feet from the basket in a game where they were rewarding a team for being aggressive to the rim. You have to be able to see that and adjust.

Did you really just post that after the Jones no call video?

 

[CyBobby]

I’ve been watching ISU sports for almost 40 years and we’ve had some bad calls- some at critical moments that hurt our team. However, there were always other plays we DIDN’T make that everyone seems to forget about.
Last night, we were on the short end of the FTs and it clearly made a difference. But what about us going 5-26 from 3? If we just hit 5 of those and go 10-26 we likely win the game. We had our chances and we didn’t execute- and the refs didn’t have anything to do with that.

I AGREE ... We need to shoot a lot better from behind the 3 point line. And of course "STAY AWAY FROM THOSE SILLY TICKY TACK FOULS"...That some REFS just Love to Call!

 

[CyBobby]

Interesting observation (3 refs). I had to look it up. Seems like they went to 3 refs in 1975 (only 2 prior to this). Long time ago now.

Maybe with the frequent complaining about officiating, perceived discrepancies favoring one team or the other, coupled with a lack of enough competent and/or younger refs coming up, we should go back to two refs?

How about using two live-game refs, along with a "remote ref"? A remote ref or refs, would also be in a position to see the game flow, consult with live-game officials, make adjustments. The object would be fairly called, more consistent officiating.

To a certain extent they do some of this now in sports, remote consultation (NFL, MLB, etc.), The technology is available. Any remote officiating would have a goal to keep the 'flow' of the game and with minimal replays. Adjusting some of the situations where replays could be used also seems needed.

Are games that much better officiated with 3 refs (since 1975) versus only 2 refs (pre-1975)?

Three REFS seem to call a lot more fouls these days...It could just be that every Coach Wants TO PLAY VERY AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE...OR EVERY REF THINKS EVERY TICKY TACK FOUL NEEDS TO BE CALLED!!

 

[VeloClone]

Three REFS seem to call a lot more fouls these days...It could just be that every Coach Wants TO PLAY VERY AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE...OR EVERY REF THINKS EVERY TICKY TACK FOUL NEEDS TO BE CALLED!!

Or that the game has gotten more physical across the board. When they have points of emphasis like the freedom of movement effort you are going to have a lot more fouls. It also seems that a lot of players are unable to adjust their style of play to how the game is being called.