MBB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[goscots]

A little late but some comments on Kenyon-Wooster

The new facility is going to be a great recruiting tool for Kenyon. There were a large number of loyal Wooster supporters there last night and I could see the envy in their eyes. I think that whatever upgrade plans Wooster has will be pressured to be speed up.

While there are always specific calls (or no calls) in a game that frustrate fans, I agree with an earlier post that as a whole this was about the poorest called game I have seen all season. First, no call maulings as guards drove to the baskest, then ticky tack fouls in the post. Also saw numerous times when the referee who was in position to make a call didn't but the one on the other side, with a supposedly blocked view did.

Finally, but most important is the break away intentional foul I saw last night. Fortunatley Vandervaart didn't attempt a dunk on that play or he could have been seriously hurt.  The Kenyon player (#23 Jolson) pushed Vandervaart in the back with BOTH hands as he went for the layup. This can not be tolerated. Is there not a method for the league to review these plays a hand out post game suspensions like the NFL does?

[DenisonFan]

Excuse the poor spelling... the word is muscled not musseled.  :-)

Either way, I didn't know Denison players were such thugs!!  I LIKE IT!!

[wally_wabash]

Isn't the real crime here that the NCAC even makes Wooster go play at places like Kenyon and Hiram?  Not only do the Scots have to take time out of their schedules to make the bus trip to the far reaches of northeastern Ohio, but then they actually have suit up to play against these teams and put their health at risk...nonsense.  There needs to be an investigation.   

I'm sensing some hypersensitivite reactions to hard fouls here...likely because of what happened to Port.  Hard fouls happen.  Sometimes basketball is a physical game.  Sometimes players get injured because of this.  I won't deny that shoving a guy in the back as he's shooting a layup (if that's an accurate description of the play...sometimes we homers have a tendency to make a hard foul sound like attempted homicide) is probably not necessary, but calling for the league to suspend a player because of it is a bit much.  Was there intent to injure?  I'm doubting it.  More likely is that the kid was playing hard and got a little too aggressive.  I'm sure a Wooster player has never committed a hard foul. 

[imderekpoe]

Wally - this was a 2-handed push in the back while the player was in the air.  There was absolutely no effort to block the shot or steal the ball at all, and the ref didn't hesitate in making the intentional call.  I don't think that I'd go so far as to say that he was trying to hurt Vandervaart, but the kid has to be aware of the potential ramifications of that kind of play, and needs to pull off when there's no chance of making a play on the ball.

IMO, there is no place in the game for this type of play or the player that would make it.

[smedindy]

I've seen similar plays in high school this year - sure it's an intentional foul - but put the torches down. It happens.

[woosterbooster]

I was sitting about thirty feet from this foul.  Only a couple of players on the court and those players on the Wooster bench had a better view.  The foul was deliberate.  That means the player did it on purpose, it was a conscious decision.  He knew he had no chance to stop the shot, yet chose to shove Vandervaart in the back while he was in the air.  And this wasn't a split-second decision.  He'd been chasing Vandervaart for a few strides, realized he couldn't contest the shot, and chose to do what he did.  You could almost see it coming, see his thought process.  Whether or not he hoped to injure Vandervaart (and I'm sure that he didn't) is completely irrellevant.  He could have.

When you say that these types of fouls "happen" it appears as if you're apologizing for the player's behavior.  Accidential hard fouls "happen" and we understand that.  Deliberate, conscious, on-purpose fouls don't just "happen", they are the result of deliberate behaviour, and they shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm not saying this guy should have been ejected or that he should be suspended.  He was lucky, in this situation, as Vandervaart was able to mostly keep his balance.  But had Vandervaart been higher in the air, been attempting to dunk, and this kid had made the same conscious decision, he then should have been barred for the rest of the season.  And if I was his coach, I would condone that decision.  Or toss him from the team myself.

[wally_wabash]

Kick the kid off the team?  This is way over the top.  The kid made a dumb foul.  He got called for an intentional foul, Wooster probably got about 18 foul shots out of the deal (not that Wooster was making foul shots last night anyway) and got the ball right back.  Isn't that plenty of penalty for a dumb foul? 

"But Tim could have been seriously hurt..."  Tim could get seriously hurt by any number of things in the game of basketball including but not limited to: diving around on the floor for a loose ball, jumping around for rebounds, jockeying for post postions....I've seen players get hurt under all of these scenarios, none of which are particularly nefarious.  Should players clear away from Wooster's post men when balls are in the air to be rebounded?  I'd hate for a Wooster player to come down on somebody's foot and badly twist or sprain a knee or ankle. 

It sounds to me like Kenyon's player made a stupid foul.  Why come down so hard on him like this?  Until there's evidence that there was intent to injure, this goes down as a stupid foul (and I'm guessing that he's been told as much, several times, by somebody on his coaching staff). 

[smedindy]

I'm not condoning anything - and your inference that I am is disturbing. I'm just saying that I see a type of contact like this a few times a year - and it's not malicious in nature. It looks bad because of the circumstance or happenstance, but the player may be honestly trying to prevent an easy two - and gets a little carried away with adrenalin.

Or the player on defense does think he can contest the shot, and really can't, and his effort and momentum carries him into the player from behind. Lots of players have hubris that they can get there when they can't.

In fact, the high school game I covered on Friday a player went up for a layin and was pushed from behind. There was an awkward landing, but all was OK. The ref was too chicken to call an intentional foul against the home team.

The correct call is an intentional foul. That's why they have the intentional foul rule in the book. Two shots, ball out of bounds. Everyone shakes hands. No need to get draconian on the kid -  again it happens and it's usually not malicious.

[woosterbooster]

I'm not saying this guy should have been ejected or that he should be suspended. He was lucky, in this situation, as Vandervaart was able to mostly keep his balance. But had Vandervaart been higher in the air, been attempting to dunk, and this kid had made the same conscious decision, he then should have been barred for the rest of the season. And if I was his coach, I would condone that decision. Or toss him from the team myself.

Read what I wrote, Wally.  I said that he shouldn't have been ejected or suspended for yesterday's foul.  I said that he should had it been of a more serious nature.

"But Tim could have been seriously hurt..." Tim could get seriously hurt by any number of things in the game of basketball including but not limited to: diving around on the floor for a loose ball, jumping around for rebounds, jockeying for post postions....I've seen players get hurt under all of these scenarios, none of which are particularly nefarious. Should players clear away from Wooster's post men when balls are in the air to be rebounded? I'd hate for a Wooster player to come down on somebody's foot and badly twist or sprain a knee or ankle.

I simply can't understand how you can't see the difference between the normal rough activity in the game (as you describe above) and the type of deliberate foul that I've described.  If the former leads to injuries, so be it, it's an intrinsic part of the game, and it "happens". The latter, despite what you seem to think,  does not have to be part of the game, it should be better controlled, and those players who chose to continue to deal out that sort of deliberate and dangerous foul should be punished.

Smedindy -

Or the player on defense does think he can contest the shot, and really can't, and his effort and momentum carries him into the player from behind.

I was there.  The player's momentum and effort did not carry him into the shooter.  He deliberately shoved him.  Was it malicious?  No.  Does that matter?  HELL no, because that doesn't make what he did any less dangerous.

[imderekpoe]

WooBoo/Wally/Smeds - I said that he should have been tossed, and I still think so.  I think a suspension could be proper after careful review of the tapes and that kind of a decision shouldn't be made just after watching it live.  He probably should only be suspended if it looks like there was intent to injure, which I don't think was the case here.

I agree with WoosterBooster that there's a huge difference between agressive play that's part of the game, and deliberately shoving someone in the back.  People do get hurt as part of the game.  Bryan Nelson's ankle injury a few years ago may have cost the Scots a national championship, but that's part of the game and so be it.  Just because Vandervaart didn't get hurt doesn't change the play or make it in any way more acceptable.

[smedindy]

Realistically, you could call intentional fouls all day in the last stages of a contest, for shoves, pushes, and all kinds of things.

WooBoo - I think you're chopping my thoughts up too much and taking things way out of context. Please read my entire posts and not cherry pick and quote things to dispute. I was also talking in hypotheticals. We don't know what the true intent was, but to denigrate a kid for something that I see every so often in the course of a basketball season is a little extreme.

And yes I know you were there but I was at a lot of games too where similar things happened, and a lynch mob didn't break out.

[CentralOH]

If only we could get a quote from the Kenyon player to clarify the situation

[DenisonFan]

Does no one have anything to say about those physical bullys from Granville??
Talk about the Charles Oakley of the NCAC.  :-)  They just maul teams!!

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.  (just kidding)

In the heat of battle players do dumb stuff.  It happens.  It is part of the game.  It doesn't make it right, but it happens.

[billy_pilgrim]

DF,

I think you're taking Justus' quote way out of context.

I hardly think he was saying that Denison's players were thugs.....we've had those thug discussions on this board in the past.

In fact, let's look at it lifted straight from the SID release.

"Denison came ready to play," Earlham coach Jeff Justus said. "We didn't respond to their physical defensive play."

I think saying a team is ready to play and playing physical defense is quite a compliment. Knowing Justus pretty well, I'm sure he was inferring that Denison didn't back down on the defensive end and forced Earlham to run its offense farther away from the basket.

Again, that's a compliment. But, make of it what you will. You've let known your half-brained assertions and conclusions throughout the season, so I'm sure you'll keep on with this one.

But I restate, in no place did anyone say Denison played like thugs...just that they played physical defense, something they haven't played any of over the course of the past three seasons against Earlham.

[smedindy]

There's a yawning chasm between physical defense and thuggery.