Big East refs blow an obvious double-dribble on UVA

[Nukem2]

I asked it before, but nobody took the bait.  Did anybody here believe the defender knocked the ball away???? 

That is the ONLY explanation for not seeing a double-dribble in the open court.  There is no judgement to make here.  He PICKED up the ball with both hands and resumed dribbling.

No conspiracy here, just incompetence.

Guy grabbed his jersey, that’s why he lost his dribble.  Probably why the ref let it go?

[Pakuni]

This is 94's original post:

Welcome to the club Auburn.  You got jobbed by Breeding and his band of idiots.

Probably for the best, had Auburn won it all, the title would eventually be vacated thanks to Chuck Person & Bruce Pearl. 

Tony Bennett, like his dad, is one of the good guys.  I am pulling for UVA.

I don't see anything about the refs willfully screwing Auburn or preferring UVa. I just see an accusation of incompetence. And as 94 said just above, he had no intention of implying otherwise.

and here's wht he later wrote:

2 refs were looking right at the ballhandler, and swallowed their whistles.

Swallowed their whistles = willfully ignoring the infraction.

[GooooMarquette]

and here's wht he later wrote:

2 refs were looking right at the ballhandler, and swallowed their whistles.

Swallowed their whistles = willfully ignoring the infraction.

He actually said he had no intention to imply willfulness. But whatever. You read it one way, I read it another....

[Pakuni]

He actually said he had no intention to imply willfulness. But whatever.

So they looked right at the ballhandler and accidentally swallowed their whistles. Duly noted.

[GooooMarquette]

So they looked right at the ballhandler and accidentally swallowed their whistles. Duly noted.

Incompetently.

[Cheeks]

By the way, these guys aren't just "BIG EAST REFS".  Breeding works ACC, Big East, Big Ten and other conferences.

[NickelDimer]

Every call is a judgment call.....it is up to the ref to make a judgment to blow his whistle and make a call.  As Jay Williams properly said, he was fouled. 

Second, did the Auburn player travel before that on the inbounds pass?  Judgment call.   All of the calls are ultimately a judgment call.

That double dribble isn’t a judgment call. I’m assuming you can differentiate between that infraction and many other types like fouls etc

[Cheeks]

That double dribble isn’t a judgment call. I’m assuming you can differentiate between that infraction and many other types like fouls etc

If it isn't called, then someone made a judgment not to call it.   So about that travel....also an infraction...how come it wasn't called?

[NickelDimer]

If it isn't called, then someone made a judgment not to call it.   So about that travel....also an infraction...how come it wasn't called?

No they missed it. They failed to do the job they’re paid to do and enforce the rules they’re paid to enforce. Has nothing to do with judgment. It was incompetence

[MUEng92]

So wait, Breeding doesn't have a day job kicking puppies?

Plus, the kid who committed the foul handles it the right way.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sports-columnists/story/2019-04-06/ncaa-final-four-virginia-auburn-samir-doughty-kyle-guy-referee

[D'Lo Brown]

Lot of angst in this thread.

I have to say, I feel like I've seen this occur multiple times in our games this season and it wasn't called. Without putting two and two together, I honestly never thought about it being a double-dribble but obviously it is. For better or worse, I think this falls into the category for referees that most traveling calls and carrying calls also reside.

Is that a good thing, no, but I just see that referees (across several sports now) tend to focus mainly on "points of emphasis" as opposed to this category of calls. The leagues/governing bodies would prefer them to focus on enforcing fouls that are intended to alter the flow of the game in their desired direction (I'd call it activist officiating).

This also probably fits into the category of ticky-tack calls that referees almost invariably swallow their whistles on within the last few seconds of the game. From this perspective then, Auburn has a legitimate gripe because with 1 second left they were then called for the type of foul that happens on most buzzer beaters and 99.999% of the time, it isn't called. Is it a foul, indubitably, but you never see that called... Ever.

It just goes to show how referee-isms, like swallowing your whistle in certain scenarios, can lead to uneven outcomes.

[Cheeks]

No they missed it. They failed to do the job they’re paid to do and enforce the rules they’re paid to enforce. Has nothing to do with judgment. It was incompetence

They missed the travel call...I agree. See, we can all come to an agreement at times.  Calls are missed, all the time.

[94Warrior]

So they looked right at the ballhandler and accidentally swallowed their whistles. Duly noted.

I already said it was a poor choice I words, all I meant was they didn't blow the whistle.

Anyway, did you believe the defender knocked the ball away?  I did not. 

And, anyone who forms their opinions from some of these announcers, I am assuming don't care or pay attention as closely as you and I do.  Everybody here knows and cares more about college basketball than most of the play-by-play announcers I have heard.

[wadesworld]

I already said it was a poor choice I words, all I meant was they didn't blow the whistle.

Anyway, did you believe the defender knocked the ball away?  I did not. 

And, anyone who forms their opinions from some of these announcers, I am assuming have never been on a team message board.  Everybody here knows and cares more about college basketball than most of the announcers I have heard.

I’ll go ahead and say Kenny, Chuck, Jay Williams, etc. have been exposed to a *little* higher level of basketball than *most* Scoopers have. Just a wild guess on that though.

[brewcity77]

I’ll go ahead and say Kenny, Chuck, Jay Williams, etc. have been exposed to a *little* higher level of basketball than *most* Scoopers have. Just a wild guess on that though.

Playing the game at a high level does not automatically confer the ability to describe the game at a high level. When Kenny tried to explain possessions, it was the most ridiculously incoherent attempt at talking about the game I have heard in a long, long time. He has zero concept of how advanced statistics work or how even a concept as simple as possessions works.

I don't think it's too much to ask that people who are paid specifically to talk about the game be able to do so in both an entertaining and accurately informative manner. Neither Kenny nor Charles are capable of doing that.

[Jon]

I really would have preferred an Auburn - Texas Tech Final.

[94Warrior]

I’ll go ahead and say Kenny, Chuck, Jay Williams, etc. have been exposed to a *little* higher level of basketball than *most* Scoopers have. Just a wild guess on that though.

I was talking about the majority of the play-by-play announcers we unfortunately are subjected to.  There are many that can't follow the action, don't have the slightest idea why the whistle blew (until the ref signals the call to the scorers' table), can't understand why the crowd is upset, etc.

Come to think of it, most play-by-play guys are worse than your average Big East ref.  Thankfully announcers don't decide the outcomes of games.

The studio guys know plenty more than any of us, but they are there to entertain you - not tell you how bad the reffing is.

[wadesworld]

Playing the game at a high level does not automatically confer the ability to describe the game at a high level. When Kenny tried to explain possessions, it was the most ridiculously incoherent attempt at talking about the game I have heard in a long, long time. He has zero concept of how advanced statistics work or how even a concept as simple as possessions works.

I don't think it's too much to ask that people who are paid specifically to talk about the game be able to do so in both an entertaining and accurately informative manner. Neither Kenny nor Charles are capable of doing that.

I think maybe 5% of the NCAA Tournament viewing audience wants to hear the studio analysts talk about turnover rate or offensive efficiencies. Kenny is great at breaking down video. And regarding the topic we’re talking about, 2 guys who played in the NBA, one of which is a Hall of Famer whose alma mater had a missed call go against his team in the Final Four, said himself that he had no idea they missed a double dribble. Which suggests the call wasn’t some can’t miss, obvious call.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I saw the ball go off his foot when dribbling. I didn’t realize he used two hands to pick it up until I saw the replay.

[brewcity77]

I think maybe 5% of the NCAA Tournament viewing audience wants to hear the studio analysts talk about turnover rate or offensive efficiencies.

Kenny said in order to win, Virginia needed 5-6 more possessions than Auburn. That's not possible in regulation. I'm not talking about advanced stats, though that would be a massive improvement, but just being able to coherently and accurately talk about the basics of the game would be a huge improvement, something Smith & Barkley are incapable of doing.

[rocket surgeon]

i'll tell ya, charlie showed a ton of composure, coming onto the post game show.  he openly admitted the foul was probably a foul(it was) but i don't recall what their opinions were of the double dribble.  in any event, i was a little surprised he came on post game. 

ok, the foul was a foul, but do they call it a foul consistently?  itwould be nice if they did, but what drives me nuts is not calling something that is a focal point.  for example, a guy putting a shot up or guys battling for the rebound.  in other words, where the ball IS

ya know, i watch a lot of basketball.  i don't get paid to call stuff, but i did miss the double dribble.  in all fairness, the fact that auburn still had fouls left hurt them.  what is also amazing is...they still had fouls left.  you're gonna tell me that auburn did not commit 8 fouls in the 2nd half?  m-kay 

[wadesworld]

Kenny said in order to win, Virginia needed 5-6 more possessions than Auburn. That's not possible in regulation. I'm not talking about advanced stats, though that would be a massive improvement, but just being able to coherently and accurately talk about the basics of the game would be a huge improvement, something Smith & Barkley are incapable of doing.

You can get extra possessions (shots) by forcing turnovers and getting offensive rebounds.

[brewcity77]

You can get extra possessions (shots) by forcing turnovers and getting offensive rebounds.

No. That's not how it works. An offensive rebound does not create an extra possession, it creates an existent possession. A turnover does not create an extra possession because the other team had the ball (and thus the possession) prior to the turnover. It is impossible to have 5-6 extra possessions in a regulation game as Smith suggested, and certainly not in a half, where the absolute maximum possession differential is 1.

Offensive rebounds do not create extra possessions. Fouls do not create extra possessions. Turnovers do not create extra possessions. That's not how the game works. It's not complicated. If he wants to talk about extending possessions, or creating additional scoring opportunities, that's fine, but it is a completely different thing than extra possessions. You could have 10 offensive rebounds on one sequence, 11 shots taken, but it's still one possessions. That's just how the game works. And it's not too much to ask that someone paid as much as Smith have a basic comprehension of that.

[wadesworld]

No. That's not how it works. An offensive rebound does not create an extra possession, it creates an existent possession. A turnover does not create an extra possession because the other team had the ball (and thus the possession) prior to the turnover. It is impossible to have 5-6 extra possessions in a regulation game as Smith suggested, and certainly not in a half, where the absolute maximum possession differential is 1.

Offensive rebounds do not create extra possessions. Fouls do not create extra possessions. Turnovers do not create extra possessions. That's not how the game works. It's not complicated. If he wants to talk about extending possessions, or creating additional scoring opportunities, that's fine, but it is a completely different thing than extra possessions. You could have 10 offensive rebounds on one sequence, 11 shots taken, but it's still one possessions. That's just how the game works. And it's not too much to ask that someone paid as much as Smith have a basic comprehension of that.

It creates an existent possession? What? How can you create something that exists?

Again, there might have been 5% of the viewing audience that might have gotten disturbed about Kenny not using the proper terminology for statheads. The other 95% of the world heard him and had a basic understanding that he was saying one team needed to force more turnovers and grab more offensive rebounds.

[WarriorDad]

Barkley makes basketball fun.