MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[sac]

I guess this is the worst call ever in the history of basketball.......so no more complaints. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouG2UddP3k0&feature=related

[sac]

In high school I had a friend on the basketball team who was fouled hard going to the basket, the resulting hit to the head and fall to the floor resulted in him biting his tongue hard enough that the swelling blocked his airway and sent him into seizure like muscle spasms.  1500 people had to sit there powerless while my friend turned blue in the face waiting for the ambulance.  He suffered a severe concusion missed several weeks of school and had to teach his muscles how to walk again.   It was a scary moment that I never want to see again and if there are rules in place that might prevent that then so be it.

In 1987 I don't think we had those kind of intenional foul rules, I know this one was simply called a foul.  Who knows how many incidents like this have been prevented by calling the hard fouls intentional.  It might make a player think once or twice about what he's doing.

So when it comes to hard fouls that are ruled intentional to protect the safety of the players I have zero problem with that interpretation. 

[scottiedawg]

Can anyone report on the ankle sprains of Griffin and Kaat.  Are they ancient history?  Or is Griffin's still nagging.  Also, any word on Brent Schuster?

[oldknight]

I thought a key moment in the game yesterday was the intentional foul called on Adrian's Brett Asher, and I have to say I simply don't like that rule. (For those who missed it, Reimink head faked and Asher came down on top of him). Asher played a tough game, and he instinctively went for a fake and tried to protect himself on the way down. It just isn't an intentional foul.

Let me try and parse the apparent ambiguity in your twin comments highlighted above. I believe what you are saying is that you know what the rule is but that you don't think it should be what it is. If you read the NCAA officiating guidelines, then the game event you describe above (I believe Asher grabbed Reimink on the way down) is an intentional foul and the official really had no choice but call it an intentional foul. I know it seems harsh but the rule as written does have the virtue of offering more officiating consistency. If Asher had been judged as truly trying to hurt Reimink he would have been awarded a flagrant foul and ejection is automatic in such a case. Apparently it made little difference here since I believe it was his 5th foul. For more on the rule check out this link and go to Appendix III/Officiating Guidelines at pp. 146-47.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf

Can anyone report on the ankle sprains of Griffin and Kaat.  Are they ancient history?  Or is Griffin's still nagging.  Also, any word on Brent Schuster?

I have no inside knowledge on this but Kaat seems to be doing fine. However, I am convinced that Griffin's injury is serious and likely to dog him the rest of the year. He first did it in the win over Cornerstone and he has tweaked it several times since. In Saturday's loss to Albion he was visibly limping throughout the second half and he suffered through what I thought was his worst game ever as a Knight. He's a real gamer and its too bad he has been limited in his mobility this year because when healthy he's a game changer. Schuster has dropped off the radar screen completely and is now a part of the dreaded byline: DNP-Coach's decision.

[Civic Minded]

This Saturday's game is what we've all been waiting for since last March.   

And if I get there early enough for the start of the jv game, will there be parking close enough to avoid the shuttle?  Or is all parking gone at this point?  Thanks in advance!

Well the whole upper-deck of one side of the court(the side behind the Calvin student section) is closed off.  That's pretty much one/fifth of the seating there closed off, although I'm sure it will still be very loud!

The shuttle has changed locations.  It was previously going to be at the Prince Center, now it's going to still be across the Beltline, but more north, directly across from Boer-Bennink hall (the best hall).  I should, or somebody else should, be getting more information in our emails and we'll copy and paste onto the board so you know exactly where to go for the shuttle. 

If you don't mind walking in the cold, and get their early enough, then you should find some parking spaces in the normal West lot.

I just recommend getting there a little earlier than usual than past years.  The start of the JV will be a good time.

Many thanks, gk68!   

[HopeConvert]

Hope up to #5 in D3Hoops poll.

OK: The apparent ambiguity results from the fact that my former statement was a representation of a state of mind, and the latter being simply rhetoric. But you've stated my position correctly: I understand that is the rule, I don't think it ought to be, the occasional scary event notwithstanding.

As I said, it was a hard foul, but I think anyone who has ever head-faked under the hoop knows that a possible result is having someone land on top of you. I'm not sure the semantics cover the issue. "Flagrant"? Maybe - except I have seen it happen so many times that I don't think it can be considered obviously wrong. Again, it seems to me he was operating instinctively. Mind you, I was sitting at midcourt. Someone in the west bleachers would have had a better view. I don't think Asher went up into the air thinking to himself "I really need to foul Reimink here." More likely he went into the air thinking he was going to block the shot. I don't think the fact that he already had 3 or 4 fouls on him disposes the question, and certainly ought not to have factored into the ref's decision.

As I said, though, I have a certain sympathy for a player in that position, having been there many times myself. You're up in the air and all you're thinking about is how to break your fall. I can say that I have seen the fakee hurt many times in that situation (I've been racked up a few myself) but can't recall a single time the faker was hurt. I'm not sure the rule is designed to protect the fakee, and in any case, it flies in the face of human nature so is unlikely to do so.

[GoKnights68]

Since we're all speaking of calls, does any Calvin or Albion fan that was close enough to the court care to comment on the technical that was given to KVS in the final few minutes of the game Saturday?  I already gave my opinion, but I haven't really heard any others that said they agreed or disagreed with it.  It was a big time momentum swing.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think the problem is in the name, 'intentional' foul.  A faked-out defender, trying instinctively to save himself from injury, should not be termed (in effect) a mugger!  (In situations where he is so out of control as to present a clear and present danger to himself or others, call it what it is: a flagrant foul.)  I'm very empathetic to sac's tale (I once saw a hs player rendered a paraplegic, and hope I never see it again), but that didn't sound like what was being discussed here (your details were lacking, so I don't know for sure) - that struck me as a foul that today would have clearly been deemed 'flagrant'.

They finally stopped calling 'hanging on the rim' violations where the dunker had lost balance and was simply trying to save himself from a nasty fall (though, naturally, some dunkers now abuse the leeway with impunity); I think the 'faked-out defender grabbing the faker' situation would usually be analogous.  I'm not certain whether the rule should be changed for such situations (I think it is often overly harsh, but may be a legitimate safety measure), but at least change the name!

[ChicagoHopeNut]

I thought a key moment in the game yesterday was the intentional foul called on Adrian's Brett Asher, and I have to say I simply don't like that rule. (For those who missed it, Reimink head faked and Asher came down on top of him). Asher played a tough game, and he instinctively went for a fake and tried to protect himself on the way down. It just isn't an intentional foul.

Let me try and parse the apparent ambiguity in your twin comments highlighted above. I believe what you are saying is that you know what the rule is but that you don't think it should be what it is. If you read the NCAA officiating guidelines, then the game event you describe above (I believe Asher grabbed Reimink on the way down) is an intentional foul and the official really had no choice but call it an intentional foul. I know it seems harsh but the rule as written does have the virtue of offering more officiating consistency. If Asher had been judged as truly trying to hurt Reimink he would have been awarded a flagrant foul and ejection is automatic in such a case. Apparently it made little difference here since I believe it was his 5th foul. For more on the rule check out this link and go to Appendix III/Officiating Guidelines at pp. 146-47.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf

I just returned from the Georgetown Syracuse game where the exact play described above occurred. Since Roy Hibbert had not yet started to jump up not only was it not called an intentional foul but Hibbert didn't even get free throws. And in my opinion it was absolutely the right call. I know what the rulebook states but in past years they have not called the sorts of plays described above has intentional fouls and I really don't think you help "control" a game but doing so now.

[KnightSlappy]

Since we're all speaking of calls, does any Calvin or Albion fan that was close enough to the court care to comment on the technical that was given to KVS in the final few minutes of the game Saturday?  I already gave my opinion, but I haven't really heard any others that said they agreed or disagreed with it.  It was a big time momentum swing.

KVS was riding the officials fairly hard after the second "traveling" call on Veltema.  I guess the ref just got sick of it after one particularly loud "he was pushing him in the back."  I don't necessarily disagree with the call but I have seen and heard many coaches get away with worse.

[Stinger]

To my knowledge the "debate" of this call has never come up until this year.  That being the case, it's obvious that referees have been informed to change the way they make this call.  though I haven't seen the play from Saturday, I have obviously seen this play take place many many times.  99.9% of the time the call is just a foul. If the defender does something crazy on the way down then, sure, it's an intentional.  I don't agree whatseover that this should be called intentional, and I don't really see what officials are trying to achieve by calling it so. 

I'd be pissed off as an Adrian fan if that call led to another Hope basket. Buck must have been beside himself.

[bulldogalum]

Stinger:  that call is a point of emphasis for officials this year.  I think the fault lies in the new definition of intentional foul, not in the officials.  We're effectively killing the messenger by getting angry with the refs on this one.

[oldknight]

Since we're all speaking of calls, does any Calvin or Albion fan that was close enough to the court care to comment on the technical that was given to KVS in the final few minutes of the game Saturday?  I already gave my opinion, but I haven't really heard any others that said they agreed or disagreed with it.  It was a big time momentum swing.

KVS was riding the officials fairly hard after the second "traveling" call on Veltema.  I guess the ref just got sick of it after one particularly loud "he was pushing him in the back."  I don't necessarily disagree with the call but I have seen and heard many coaches get away with worse.

For anyone at Saturday night's game who also heard KVS's amazing post game comments to Doug Wentworth (I wish WFUR would archive this one) it's pretty apparent what happened. I've listened to many of these postgame chats between Doug and Kevin and I don't think I have ever heard such strongly worded criticism of officials before. KVS is usually pretty realistic and charitable about the job officials have to do and he knows that during the course of a game you win some and you lose some. But as the game progressed the Brit players (who admittedly did outwork Calvin for the first 10 minutes of the second half) seemed to have made the decision that they would challenge the officals with an ever increasing level of physical play just to see what the refs would do about it. The short, sweet and definately "not-approved-for-publication-by-Calvin-College" answer turned out to be: "Not a damn thing."

I think the call on Veltema with 3:27 left in a two point ball game was the last straw for KVS. Veltema was being harrassed at the elbow when he went to the ground and was called for traveling. That much was true--he did travel when he went to the floor. The fact that the Brit defender placed Matthew on the ground seemed to be of little consequence to the official and the resultant T and two made FT's changed the dynamic for the rest of the game. This play was merely the last in a long series of noncalls that hurt the Knights. As I best recollect KVS's postgame comment in reference to this crew's work he said, "This was a big game and it's just not right." I interpreted this to mean that he believed the officiating team Calvin drew wasn't exactly the 'A' team of approved MIAA officals. Not the 'B' team either. I'm pretty sure the head of officials got a call Monday morning--if not earlier.

[Civic Minded]

In what I've seen so far of league play, there has been a lot more than usual of "letting them play," and I'm not so sure it's a good thing.  Anyone else notice this in other games around the league?

[Flying Dutch Fan]

To my knowledge the "debate" of this call has never come up until this year.  That being the case, it's obvious that referees have been informed to change the way they make this call.  though I haven't seen the play from Saturday, I have obviously seen this play take place many many times.  99.9% of the time the call is just a foul. If the defender does something crazy on the way down then, sure, it's an intentional.  I don't agree whatseover that this should be called intentional, and I don't really see what officials are trying to achieve by calling it so. 

I'd be pissed off as an Adrian fan if that call led to another Hope basket. Buck must have been beside himself.

As I recall, it looked like the correct call to me - there was little to no effort to get the ball.  And I did notice that there wasn't much objection to the call from the Adrian bench.