Empire 8

[e8bballfan]

WOW cant believe that fisher-UC game.  One that will go down in the record books most likely, as this is the first time that fisher has not made the e8 tourney. These guys cannot hit a free throw.  Also fisher needs to focus on making better decisions in the clutch.  This can be attributed to bad preparation by the coaching staff.  Obviously fisher does not practice situational basketball at all.  I cant believe they blew this game.  Utica did play well down the stretch with good shooting and good decisions.  This shows how much Connelly has progressed in his coaching.  I am very excited to see Utica in the next 2 years.

I would disagree with them not practicing situational basketball. Fisher has always been one of the better teams in the conference with games on the line. It would be interesting to go back and check out Fisher's record in games decided by 7 points or less in the last 6 years. I am guessing they have won a LOT more than they have lost in those games.

I think this is just a season that got away from Fisher. The played a little over their head for a team with so much young talent, and some key losses finally caught up to them. I think ultimately, they finished with the record most expected of them, they just didn't space out the losses like we thought they would. They looked great at times this year, giving a pretty down fan base something to be hopeful for. Beating U of R, beating St. Mary's, and being 14-2 everything was rolling. I will be interested to see what Fisher does next year. I think they have the personnel to win a lot of games, and be back at the top of the conference next season. I know I am biased, but they really showed flashes of brilliance at times. But, a really bad nose dive, and the season seems like it was all bad.

During the telecast of some college game on ESPN the other day, the commentator said he believed that during the course of a 30 game season a team will overachieve 5 times, underachieve 5 times, and play to their normal level the remaining 20 times. So I guess in a d-3, 25 game schedule you could say teams overachieve and underachieve 4-5 times, and play to their normal level 15-17 times.

Judging from that, I would assume Fisher overachieved the St. Mary's game, UR game, and maybe 2 others (can't think of them now) and underachieved the Alfred game and a few others.

There is no doubt the team is talented and I think will be one of the top contenders in the conference next season.

[bombersquadron]

WOW cant believe that fisher-UC game.  One that will go down in the record books most likely, as this is the first time that fisher has not made the e8 tourney. These guys cannot hit a free throw.  Also fisher needs to focus on making better decisions in the clutch.  This can be attributed to bad preparation by the coaching staff.  Obviously fisher does not practice situational basketball at all.  I cant believe they blew this game.  Utica did play well down the stretch with good shooting and good decisions.  This shows how much Connelly has progressed in his coaching.  I am very excited to see Utica in the next 2 years.

I would disagree with them not practicing situational basketball. Fisher has always been one of the better teams in the conference with games on the line. It would be interesting to go back and check out Fisher's record in games decided by 7 points or less in the last 6 years. I am guessing they have won a LOT more than they have lost in those games.

I think this is just a season that got away from Fisher. The played a little over their head for a team with so much young talent, and some key losses finally caught up to them. I think ultimately, they finished with the record most expected of them, they just didn't space out the losses like we thought they would. They looked great at times this year, giving a pretty down fan base something to be hopeful for. Beating U of R, beating St. Mary's, and being 14-2 everything was rolling. I will be interested to see what Fisher does next year. I think they have the personnel to win a lot of games, and be back at the top of the conference next season. I know I am biased, but they really showed flashes of brilliance at times. But, a really bad nose dive, and the season seems like it was all bad.

During the telecast of some college game on ESPN the other day, the commentator said he believed that during the course of a 30 game season a team will overachieve 5 times, underachieve 5 times, and play to their normal level the remaining 20 times. So I guess in a d-3, 25 game schedule you could say teams overachieve and underachieve 4-5 times, and play to their normal level 15-17 times.

Judging from that, I would assume Fisher overachieved the St. Mary's game, UR game, and maybe 2 others (can't think of them now) and underachieved the Alfred game and a few others.

There is no doubt the team is talented and I think will be one of the top contenders in the conference next season.

I was watching that game as well. I have thought about it for a good ten minutes and can't think of the game. I watch every UCONN game but can't remember if it was them or not. I also agree with the idea.

By the way, I don't care if it was a technical or not, that Cruz dunk was filthy. That is probably the best dunk I have seen since that Lawrence Maroney dunk against RIT a few years back.

The dunk is one of the best I have seen in a while too. Last one I can remember was Jason Boone of NYU dunking on Dan McSweeney during the 2006 Empire State Games in RIT's gym. If someone got dunked on by Cruz it would have been awesome.

Yeah, that was definitely technical-worthy. Not to mention an impressive dunk. I also cannot stand when the officials let the coaches/players make the calls for them, but that was certainly a technical.

I did not see the dunk live as the ICTV site link from the Bombers web page wasn't working for me. I do agree he did hang on the rim and no one was under him, just a tad too long and thats why he got the Tech. From the guy I talked to who works at the scorers table for IC, McVean was not yelling at the refs for a tech, but was yelling at them for timeout. I agree he is looking at them and calling for a timeout. I believe he is mad but at his team not the refs. I don't think he was fishing for the technical and thats what I have been told by the scorers table who is right there front row view.

[Bombers798891]

Bombers--

I guess the sign for technical and time out look similar. However, 2-3 seconds elapse from the dunk to the technical and it was called by a trailing official. There's got to be a reason that the officials in better position to see the play didn't call it. Word is, the suspension was overturned and Cruz will play.

Something else you can see if you look at ICTV's slow mo replay: Someone (#50) gave Cruz a little push as he was hanging from the rim. That may be another reason it was overturned

[bombersquadron]

Yup, they are very very similar. I was about to post and then it said you had posted while I was typing. But I agree with you Bombers79Etc. about it being overturned.

I'm not in Ithaca and have not talked to anyone up there since about 6:30 but I do believe it should and will be overturned. I know Cruz, he is a good kid and I don't think he meant to show-up RIT. He may have been bumped. However I know, if i caught an alley oop, versus the only team that beat me, and my gym was packed, I may have been excited and hung on the rim for a second longer. He didn't hang up there and point or hang up there and yell. I did have a few dunks in Ben Light in my days a Bomber but none nearly as great as that one. If the suspension is not over turned I would be shocked!

[Caz Bombers]

I'm gonna throw my oar in here, I don't think that was worthy of a technical at all.  Cruz dunks and is facing away from the court when the ball goes through, rather than land and turn around to run downcourt, he just lets his momentum spin him around until he's facing the right way then drops and runs.  That doesn't look like taunting or showboating in that clip in the least to me.

[FROMAFAR]

My turn........ Whether it should have been called or not, it was, so it is a technical. Let's assume it was bad call, it isn't the first and won't be the last. If they review it and overturn it, they why shouldn't they review other questionable calls.......  I know that's rediculous BUT what if the free throws made were important to the outcome of the game... do they get overturned, or is it oveturned because the Free throw mean tnothing.  Look, I want to see the kid play and of course I too believe there was no malice intended...BUT that's why there are ref's and unfortunatley, they make many mistakes as do the players and coaches and fans and Bloggers, it's all part of the game.   If was going to be overturned it should have been at the time of the incident after all 3 officials met... which they didn't.... it has to stand...BUT what do I know  

[Bombers798891]

My turn........ Whether it should have been called or not, it was, so it is a technical. Let's assume it was bad call, it isn't the first and won't be the last. If they review it and overturn it, they why shouldn't they review other questionable calls.......  I know that's rediculous BUT what if the free throws made were important to the outcome of the game... do they get overturned, or is it oveturned because the Free throw mean tnothing.  Look, I want to see the kid play and of course I too believe there was no malice intended...BUT that's why there are ref's and unfortunatley, they make many mistakes as do the players and coaches and fans and Bloggers, it's all part of the game.   If was going to be overturned it should have been at the time of the incident after all 3 officials met... which they didn't.... it has to stand...BUT what do I know  

I think you have a point, regarding the "Well, if you overturn one, don't you have to overturn more?" but professional leagues look at plays involving suspensions all the time. It's one thing to say, "Look, it was a bad technical, but it was only two points, and you had 80 possessions to make up those points," but when bad calls result in players suspensions, that's a completely different argument.

Suspensions of any kind are serious, and should only be handed out to players who deserve them. Ithaca knows better than other teams in the E8 that when referees get a call wrong it can affect you on the scoreboard. That's sort of what you expect to have happen anytime a game with referees is played. But incorrect calls resulting in player suspensions are not. When it comes to things like that, referees need to be sure. As Clarence Thomas said regarding, shall we say, adult material, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." This referee clearly didn't know, which is why he took forever to make the call.

Additionally, there's been some discussion as to whether or not the RIT coach was signaling for a timeout or harping for a technical. For what it's worth, RIT wasn't credited with taking one at that juncture according to the game log. As someone who helped track them during a few harrowing days in 2007, I can tell you, sometimes we miss stuff like assists and such, but I find it hard to believe a timeout would miss our eyes. I know a poster said he was right on press row, and heard it was about a timeout, but that's where Mike Warwick (Ithaca's SID) was sitting as well. Lord knows I screwed up more live stats than a human being has a right to, but Mike could do this stuff in his sleep. If it was a timeout, he'd have logged it.

[tigerfan2]

Just watched the video of the dunk and it seems to be a borderline call but the call was made so there is nothing that can be done at that point.

Regarding the suspension, I think the discussion on whether to rescind the one game ban is ridiculous. Whether the first technical was a weak one or not (weak T's get called all the time), Cruz was still dumb enough to get himself a second technical and get thrown out. Not sure when that technical happened but if IC was up big, why even have him in the game with one technical?

[Ethelred the Unready]

The suspension was for 2 technicals, correct?  What was the other T for?  And in which order were they assessed?  If the hnging on the rim was the first, he should remain suspended for being stupid enough to pick up a second T.  If it came second, I could see some wiggle room.

[buck1053]

I don't think the Cruz dunk warranted a technical, but they called it, so you have to live for it. If anything, they should have called a T on the Ithaca coach (with the clipboard) who came off the bench and was chest bumping players (I think it was Brown) before scurrying back to the bench. Also, it looked like McVean was signaling for a timeout, not a tech. And the officials may not have realized that's what he was signaling for (especially after calling the technical), and McVean may not have wanted to waste a timeout at that point, given that his team was going to shoot two and get the ball, so he didn't belabor the point.

Just my two cents.

[FROMAFAR]

Tiger Fan makes an excellent point....... With one on you why get the second one. The one that is costing the kid is the second "T", Unless I'm missing something the rim was the first one NO?.... an as Tiger Fan said, there are weak "T's" all the time. I feel bad for the kid, but hey a good learning experience and I really don't think it will affect the outcome.  As far as whether the coach was calling a timeout OR for the "T", it doesn't matter. Coaches are supposed work ref's, let's not put th focus on the coach, this is his job.....REALLY what do I know

[Bombers798891]

Tiger Fan makes an excellent point....... With one on you why get the second one. The one that is costing the kid is the second "T", Unless I'm missing something the rim was the first one NO?.... an as Tiger Fan said, there are weak "T's" all the time. I feel bad for the kid, but hey a good learning experience and I really don't think it will affect the outcome.  As far as whether the coach was calling a timeout OR for the "T", it doesn't matter. Coaches are supposed work ref's, let's not put th focus on the coach, this is his job.....REALLY what do I know

The problem with Tiger Fan's point is that it assumes judgment calls by officials cannot be overturned by the league. What people do not understand is this is not true. That's why Cruz's suspension was overturned

"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."

So what you have is an official rule that is not steadfast in just accepting the possible mistakes of officials.

This review process is not specific to the NCAA either...

"But in the previous game against the Bulls in Chicago, official Ken Mauer hit Mutombo with a technical foul, though Mutombo turned toward the United Center crowd and away from other players. Mauer even warned he would make the same ruling that night if Mutombo did it again.

But the NBA will rescind the technical foul, according to spokesman Tim Frank, who added that this season's "respect the game" emphasis did not make the finger-waving a technical foul, unless Mutombo directs it at an opponent"

NBA teams commonly send tapes of technicals asking them to be rescinded.

In the NHL; "A player or goalkeeper who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation in the final five (5) minutes of regulation time or at anytime in overtime, shall automatically be suspended for one game. The Director of Hockey Operations will review every such incident and may rescind the suspension based on a number of criteria."

Leagues do review fouls and penalties that result in suspensions. We all have a different view on whether the dunk was technical-worthy, and we can agree to disagree there. But the logic that "Bad calls happen, there's nothing you can do about" just isn't true for these types of calls. For standard calls, yes we do accept the officials call. That's why Korinchak's shot counted last time. But for things that can result in suspensions etc. that's not true. There's a reason leagues have appeal processes for things like this. So quit acting like Ithaca should be forced to accept the decision.

[tigerfan2]

I guess I'm not suprised that the suspension was overturned but I still don't really agree with it. Regardless of what the technicals were for, if you're stupid enough to get 2 then shame on you, sit a game.

The second technical came with 7:04 to go in the second half and IC up 20. That's not exactly "empty the bench" time, but if you have a starter with a technical and you're up 20 at that point, why is that player in the game? ESPECIALLY with the conference tourney coming up, why risk it?

Cruz was stupid to pick up the second technical and Mullins was stupid for leaving him in the game and they got bailed out by a commisioner's office that made a judgement call about a judgement call. Not every commissioner would make that decision so IC should consider themselves lucky.

[FROMAFAR]

Bomber, your misunderstanding me when you say Ithaca should not be forced to accept the decision..... This has nothing to do with who and what teams are involved.   IF the rule was not intended to include .... so on so on, then it should be written as such...  Rules are not made to be debated.  If the E-* puts a disclaimer on it's rules then it should do so in writing where the rules are written.... I can't help it. I'm an engineer so I certainly have blinders and everthing is black and white to me..... got me in trouble much of my life..... BUT I just don't understand how there is s rule but "not necessarily a rule"     I agree to disagree......... Bottom line is the kid gets to play ( if in fact the rule was overturned) that works for him and no one gets hurt............ that much I know........

[Bombers798891]

Bomber, your misunderstanding me when you say Ithaca should not be forced to accept the decision..... This has nothing to do with who and what teams are involved.   IF the rule was not intended to include .... so on so on, then it should be written as such...  Rules are not made to be debated.  If the E-* puts a disclaimer on it's rules then it should do so in writing where the rules are written.... I can't help it. I'm an engineer so I certainly have blinders and everthing is black and white to me..... got me in trouble much of my life..... BUT I just don't understand how there is s rule but "not necessarily a rule"     I agree to disagree......... Bottom line is the kid gets to play ( if in fact the rule was overturned) that works for him and no one gets hurt............ that much I know........

Fromafar--

No, no I don't think you;re calling for Ithaca to just accept it, and you raise an interesting point on rules being subject for debate. Part of the problem though, is that it's impossible to know all the scenarios that will arise that will fall under the jurisdiction of the rule, so often times, rules don't specify how every situation should be handled. This is a fault of rule-makers, but it's also why they allow for reviews. There are probably dozens of things you could get a T for, but you can't come up with them all, because every official is different. So you come up with a more general rule, and if individual situations come up that people want clarification on, you allow for that.

The E8 gave a strange ruling in the case. They essentially said, the technical stands, but the suspension does not because of the "type" of technical it was. And that seems a little odd to me. I agree that it's in bad practice for a league to do that. I honestly expected the conference to simply say the first technical wasn't warranted. But, let's remember something: The NBA has something similar. They have two different flagrant fouls, and of course, the flagrant foul is a variant on a personal foul. So essentially, the league has three categories of severity regarding fouls, each with a distinct level of punishment.

Tiger--

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