Empire 8

[FROMAFAR]

Well put Bombers, I will only disagree with one point, Officials are always the same at Fisher for some reason......... easy Dynasty just a little jab.... didn't mean to hit when you are down........... 

[tigerfan2]

Yes, Cruz needed to be smarter and not pick up that second technical. And that's on him. But I don't know if Mullins should be chastised too hard for leaving him in there. 20 points is a lot, but so is 7 minutes. Just as one example, against St. Lawrence, the Bombers had a 17 point lead with 15:01 to go. With 12:10 to go, it was down to five, thanks to a 12-0 run. Things change pretty quickly in Basketball and you don't want to relax too quickly. I do agree that Cruz needed to play with more control however

Bombers,
I mentioned that the 7 minute mark is not "empty the bench" time as I agree with you that a lot can happen in that time or less than that. My point was not that you need to clear the bench but you take out that 1 guy so he avoids a possible second technical. IC up 20 at home against a team that, by all accounts I've seen, was not playing well should not need to have Cruz in the game. In my opinion thats poor game management by Mullins, take it for what its worth.

You see coaches pull players out of games in the first half with 2 fouls just so they don't do something dumb and pick up a 3rd, why not take a key player out with 7 minutes left and the game in control to make sure he doesn't do anything dumb? And with Bostic already out until the NCAA's why even risk losing Cruz at that point since you are already down one starter.

[Cyclone0205]

Tiger -


I certainly understand your point.  I think part of that depends on the kid.  I don't know enough about Cruz to know whether his emotions get the best of him often or not.  If he had a Rasheed Wallace like make up, then I agree that Mullins should have pulled him, gone with Burton and Co., probably would have still won the game, and if at the 4 minute mark he didn't like how things were going, he could have put him back in.  (I know, you risk momentum and etc., but if you were going to lose that game in a 3 minute stretch without Cruz you didn't deserve it.)


However, if Cruz is usually a quiet kid or one that keeps his head about him, then I don't see anything wrong with letting him play up to the 4 minute mark, maintaining your 20 point lead if not pushing it further, and then emptying the bench and walking home with the W.

[Bombers798891]

Yes, Cruz needed to be smarter and not pick up that second technical. And that's on him. But I don't know if Mullins should be chastised too hard for leaving him in there. 20 points is a lot, but so is 7 minutes. Just as one example, against St. Lawrence, the Bombers had a 17 point lead with 15:01 to go. With 12:10 to go, it was down to five, thanks to a 12-0 run. Things change pretty quickly in Basketball and you don't want to relax too quickly. I do agree that Cruz needed to play with more control however

Bombers,
I mentioned that the 7 minute mark is not "empty the bench" time as I agree with you that a lot can happen in that time or less than that. My point was not that you need to clear the bench but you take out that 1 guy so he avoids a possible second technical. IC up 20 at home against a team that, by all accounts I've seen, was not playing well should not need to have Cruz in the game. In my opinion thats poor game management by Mullins, take it for what its worth.

You see coaches pull players out of games in the first half with 2 fouls just so they don't do something dumb and pick up a 3rd, why not take a key player out with 7 minutes left and the game in control to make sure he doesn't do anything dumb? And with Bostic already out until the NCAA's why even risk losing Cruz at that point since you are already down one starter.

I agree to a degree, but the comparison of to personal fouls and technicals is a poor one. Personal fouls are expected, dozens get called every single game. You pull a kid with two quick fouls to delay when the third one happens, not to prevent it from happening. It's not like you can say, "Well, Cruz is probably going to toss a basketball at some kid after a whistle." I think that's only the 2nd game all season IC's been in where there was a technical called. You don't see technicals coming because frankly, what you can get a technical for is ill-defined. For example, stepping out on the court to berate a ref isn't allowed, but I guess they were letting it slide on Sunday, no?   

Besides, that first technical came so early, if you adopt the "You have to pull him to guard against another one" strategy, he's not playing at all. 

I think the bigger mistake was someone not pulling Cruz over on the sidelines and saying "Ok, Chris, that first call we don't agree with, but the fact is, if you pick up another one, you'll get suspended, and we can't risk that. So you need to stay cool for the next 39 minutes." To me, that's the failure of the coaching

[TheNextLevel]

IMO...
Cruz should not have gotten a T and the RIT coach was calling timeout.  None was recorded because he probably withdrew it once the T was called because he got the stoppage of play he wanted without wasting a TO.  As far as revoking the suspension, I think it is justifiable, but I am surprised they did it because it opens a big can of worms for future appeals.  Also, the IC assistant was out of line going on the floor and chestbumping and deserved a T more than Cruz did!

[Ethelred the Unready]

IMO...
Cruz should not have gotten a T and the RIT coach was calling timeout.  None was recorded because he probably withdrew it once the T was called because he got the stoppage of play he wanted without wasting a TO.  As far as revoking the suspension, I think it is justifiable, but I am surprised they did it because it opens a big can of worms for future appeals.  Also, the IC assistant was out of line going on the floor and chestbumping and deserved a T more than Cruz did!

I think the trail official was waiting for the guy under the basket to make the call and when he didn't, blew the whistle.  I've seen it quite a bit upstate and sometimes it seems to be a function of the particular ref.  Some like to make calls that provoke reaction and others don't.  Overall I have to say after two years of watching Rochester area officials, I thought they'd be bettter. 

[Bombers798891]

IMO...
Cruz should not have gotten a T and the RIT coach was calling timeout.  None was recorded because he probably withdrew it once the T was called because he got the stoppage of play he wanted without wasting a TO.  As far as revoking the suspension, I think it is justifiable, but I am surprised they did it because it opens a big can of worms for future appeals.  Also, the IC assistant was out of line going on the floor and chestbumping and deserved a T more than Cruz did!

But if there was a stoppage of play, isn't he allowed on the court then? I don't know the rules

[Bombers798891]

IMO...
Cruz should not have gotten a T and the RIT coach was calling timeout.  None was recorded because he probably withdrew it once the T was called because he got the stoppage of play he wanted without wasting a TO.  As far as revoking the suspension, I think it is justifiable, but I am surprised they did it because it opens a big can of worms for future appeals.  Also, the IC assistant was out of line going on the floor and chestbumping and deserved a T more than Cruz did!

I think the trail official was waiting for the guy under the basket to make the call and when he didn't, blew the whistle.  I've seen it quite a bit upstate and sometimes it seems to be a function of the particular ref.  Some like to make calls that provoke reaction and others don't.  Overall I have to say after two years of watching Rochester area officials, I thought they'd be bettter. 

That's sort of telling in itself "Well, I guess the two guys in better position than me didn't think it was worth a T, so I better call it for them"?

[bamm]

I really hope you guys get onto a fourth page of discussion of that technical.  That would truly be something.

[magicman]

I really hope you guys get onto a fourth page of discussion of that technical.  That would truly be something.

Plus k

[Ralph Turner]

I really hope you guys get onto a fourth page of discussion of that technical.  That would truly be something.

Plus k

I thought that it was a technical.  Didn't you, magicman?

Which game will he miss?

[magicman]

Nazareth leading Elmira 66-55 with 10:30 to go in the game.

[magicman]

I really hope you guys get onto a fourth page of discussion of that technical.  That would truly be something.

Plus k

I thought that it was a technical.  Didn't you, magicman?

Which game will he miss?

Ralph,

I can't fault the ref for calling it. However, The E8 commissioner, has lifted the suspension. Here's a quote from Bomber798891's post on page 435 of this board.

"Normally, two technicals result in an automatic one-game suspension in the Empire 8. But a ruling by the commissioner's office Monday overrode that bylaw, citing that the rule wasn't intended to include such non-flagrant judgment calls like the first technical, Smith said."

I think the E8 commisioner was looking out for 1 of his teams and didn't want to risk an Ithaca loss in the E8 tourney. Their big man, Bostic, is out until the NCAA tournament and losing another key player might jeopardize their chances of getting an NCAA 1st round bye and/or hosting a second round pod if they lose in the 1st round of the E8 playoffs.

[magicman]

Nazareth claims the final playoff spot downing Elmira 88-78.

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks magicman.

I can see the ruling upon review of the tape.  It is not flagrant.  He could have hurt someone on his "dismount".   But he is still hanging.

I am happy with that.  The reward for RIT was the chance to shoot the fouls.  The foul shots could neutralize the dunk, and RIT got to the bonus quicker.