NAU Coach Jack Murphy Suspended…

[Grizalltheway]

"Allowing" it to happen? Should he have run onto the court after him and tackled him?

Seriously, just quit while you're "ahead".

[SDHornet]

SH is correct in that the HC is responsible for everyone on that bench…and their actions as well. It’s called accountability. Fans running onto the court ≠ players and bench staff running onto the court. The HC has control (or should have control) over one of those groups, but has zero control over the other.

[SDHornet]

The commanding officer is responsible for the behavior of the people under his command.

The refs are under DeCuire's command?


Anyway, I don't think the non-technical was the wrong decision. The refs said the ball wasn't live, so Edmonds being on the court wasn't a foul—the ball had already gone through the hoop, the clock was stopped, and the refs blew the whistle so they could review the time. NAU could've inbounded it… but since they didn't have a chance to, Edmonds's transgressions didn't affect play (and NAU shouldn't have even tried to inbound it; their best chance was to hope the refs put more time on the clock anyway). This doesn't seem that much different than when fans rush the court prematurely—there's almost never a technical called there, either.

Edmonds & the Griz were lucky they got off on a technicality, but they legitimately got off on a technicality.

Which is fine if NAU was standing around looking at the ref...but they weren't. NAU was looking to inbound the ball and actually did a fraction of a second after the whistle blew.

[kalm]

The refs are under DeCuire's command?


Anyway, I don't think the non-technical was the wrong decision. The refs said the ball wasn't live, so Edmonds being on the court wasn't a foul—the ball had already gone through the hoop, the clock was stopped, and the refs blew the whistle so they could review the time. NAU could've inbounded it… but since they didn't have a chance to, Edmonds's transgressions didn't affect play (and NAU shouldn't have even tried to inbound it; their best chance was to hope the refs put more time on the clock anyway). This doesn't seem that much different than when fans rush the court prematurely—there's almost never a technical called there, either.

Edmonds & the Griz were lucky they got off on a technicality, but they legitimately got off on a technicality.

Which is fine if NAU was standing around looking at the ref...but they weren't. NAU was looking to inbound the ball and actually did a fraction of a second after the whistle blew.

This is exactly why it should have been called.

[SDHornet]

Which is fine if NAU was standing around looking at the ref...but they weren't. NAU was looking to inbound the ball and actually did a fraction of a second after the whistle blew.

This is exactly why it should have been called.

[AZGrizFan]

Which is fine if NAU was standing around looking at the ref...but they weren't. NAU was looking to inbound the ball and actually did a fraction of a second after the whistle blew.

This is exactly why it should have been called.

So, they inbounded the ball AFTER the whistle blew to stop play, and you still think the T should have been called? Hell, watch the monitor...the refs were already moving towards the scorers table to see how much time to add back.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

This is exactly why it should have been called.

So, they inbounded the ball AFTER the whistle blew to stop play, and you still think the T should have been called? Hell, watch the monitor...the refs were already moving towards the scorers table to see how much time to add back.

Sit back and watch the whining and making up of shit AZ and let GATW put a beat down on these boys. It's more fun. I'm having a good time watching him swat away whiny flies.

Man, SH is dumber than ever though. I've missed that.

[SDHornet]

This is exactly why it should have been called.

So, they inbounded the ball AFTER the whistle blew to stop play, and you still think the T should have been called? Hell, watch the monitor...the refs were already moving towards the scorers table to see how much time to add back.

So there is no such thing as a foul when the clock isn’t running?

Final commentary by Jon at bigskyhoops.com:
http://www.bigskybball.com/2015/03/a-fi ... izona.html

Jon raises some interesting questions. And as I stated earlier in this thread, I don’t believe the bad no call would have impacted the outcome.

[Grizalltheway]

So, they inbounded the ball AFTER the whistle blew to stop play, and you still think the T should have been called? Hell, watch the monitor...the refs were already moving towards the scorers table to see how much time to add back.

Sit back and watch the whining and making up of shit AZ and let GATW put a beat down on these boys. It's more fun. I'm having a good time watching him swat away whiny flies.

Man, SH is dumber than ever though. I've missed that.

Mvem getting in on the actions too.

I find it hard to believe Doug Fullerton would be biased toward Montana & Weber since he previously worked at MSU for 17 years, but anyway…

[grizzaholic]

SH is correct in that the HC is responsible for everyone on that bench…and their actions as well. It’s called accountability. Fans running onto the court ≠ players and bench staff running onto the court. The HC has control (or should have control) over one of those groups, but has zero control over the other.

Are you drunk?

Fans running onto the court ≠ players and bench staff running onto the court.

Yet your very next sentence is

The HC has control (or should have control) over one of those groups, but has zero control over the other.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Sit back and watch the whining and making up of shit AZ and let GATW put a beat down on these boys. It's more fun. I'm having a good time watching him swat away whiny flies.

Man, SH is dumber than ever though. I've missed that.

Mvem getting in on the actions too.

I find it hard to believe Doug Fullerton would be biased toward Montana & Weber since he previously worked at MSU for 17 years, but anyway…

True, he's been bitch slappin' mother fuckers as well.

Best part of the whine crowd is talking about what eGriz is doing...why the fuck would that matter here? Ah well, I don't need to understand the dumbfuckery so it's fun to watch this lopsided ass kicking.

[dbackjon]

So, they inbounded the ball AFTER the whistle blew to stop play, and you still think the T should have been called? Hell, watch the monitor...the refs were already moving towards the scorers table to see how much time to add back.

I replied to mvem in the comments on the bigskybball blog, but it seems this place is a little more active so wanted to reply here.

My only problem with that explanation is that it doesn't seem like the whistle blew right away to review it... if you look at the ref underneath the basket, he initially starts to count for five seconds, moving his hand in that motion. After about a second, then he puts his hand up to signal the play to a stop. By that time, then Edmonds is off the court, but he is still counting during the time Edmonds is on the court.

The NAU guy in bounding the ball initially looks toward the side of the court Edmonds is, as if that was his first read to throw the ball in. While he's looking that direction, the ref standing right next to him is counting for the five seconds, not blowing the play dead.

The ref on the sideline, it's tough to get a clear look from all the angles I've seen, but to me it certainly looks like he is backpedaling so get in position for the final play, not turning to head to the review monitor.

I don't have a horse in this race, I am not a fan of NAU or Montana. I also don't think (as I said more than once) that there is any conspiracy for Montana or anything of that sort... I think the refs were a little bit intimidated to call a technical in that environment and in that situation, and the Big Sky is trying to back the call to squash the controversy from getting any bigger.

I can also tell you that I've talked to other Big Sky head coaches, national college basketball writers, and a lot of other people, and the only people who agreed it's a judgement call where not calling a technical foul there was a reasonable call are Montana fans. Which is fine, you're free to think what you will, but everyone I've talked with who is familiar with the sport and is not partial to one team or the other agrees that a technical foul should have been called.

First off - WELCOME to the Board.


And thank you for confirming what I have been saying to all the whiny Montana fans.

[SDHornet]

SH is correct in that the HC is responsible for everyone on that bench…and their actions as well. It’s called accountability. Fans running onto the court ≠ players and bench staff running onto the court. The HC has control (or should have control) over one of those groups, but has zero control over the other.

Are you drunk?

Fans running onto the court ≠ players and bench staff running onto the court.

Yet your very next sentence is

The HC has control (or should have control) over one of those groups, but has zero control over the other.

So the HC isn’t responsible for how his bench behaves?...but he has control over the fans? What kind of bizarro world do you live in.

[SDHornet]

Welcome Jon. Way to rip the tits right off of this thread.

Great, now two Jon's to keep track of on here.

[dbackjon]

Welcome Jon. Way to rip the tits right off of this thread.

Great, now two Jon's to keep track of on here.

[mtjack]

I replied to mvem in the comments on the bigskybball blog, but it seems this place is a little more active so wanted to reply here.

My only problem with that explanation is that it doesn't seem like the whistle blew right away to review it... if you look at the ref underneath the basket, he initially starts to count for five seconds, moving his hand in that motion. After about a second, then he puts his hand up to signal the play to a stop. By that time, then Edmonds is off the court, but he is still counting during the time Edmonds is on the court.

The NAU guy in bounding the ball initially looks toward the side of the court Edmonds is, as if that was his first read to throw the ball in. While he's looking that direction, the ref standing right next to him is counting for the five seconds, not blowing the play dead.

The ref on the sideline, it's tough to get a clear look from all the angles I've seen, but to me it certainly looks like he is backpedaling so get in position for the final play, not turning to head to the review monitor.

I don't have a horse in this race, I am not a fan of NAU or Montana. I also don't think (as I said more than once) that there is any conspiracy for Montana or anything of that sort... I think the refs were a little bit intimidated to call a technical in that environment and in that situation, and the Big Sky is trying to back the call to squash the controversy from getting any bigger.

I can also tell you that I've talked to other Big Sky head coaches, national college basketball writers, and a lot of other people, and the only people who agreed it's a judgement call where not calling a technical foul there was a reasonable call are Montana fans. Which is fine, you're free to think what you will, but everyone I've talked with who is familiar with the sport and is not partial to one team or the other agrees that a technical foul should have been called.

Using logic and details to back up your position....are you familiar with how this fan message board/forum thing works, Jon?

By the way, thanks for keeping the bigskybball blog going. It's nice to have a central location to discuss Big Sky hoops.

-MTJack

[Brock Landers]

Sit back and watch the whining and making up of shit AZ and let GATW put a beat down on these boys. It's more fun. I'm having a good time watching him swat away whiny flies.

Man, SH is dumber than ever though. I've missed that.

Mvem getting in on the actions too.

I find it hard to believe Doug Fullerton would be biased toward Montana & Weber since he previously worked at MSU for 17 years, but anyway…

Nope it's a conspiracy. UM gets all the calls.... except for the ones like Canada's EWU fumble, the NAU safety, the Coastal missing play, the Haynes TD, etc. But still, ALL OF THE OTHER GAME CHANGING CALLS.

[kalm]

Mvem getting in on the actions too.

Nope it's a conspiracy. UM gets all the calls.... except for the ones like Canada's EWU fumble, the NAU safety, the Coastal missing play, the Haynes TD, etc. But still, ALL OF THE OTHER GAME CHANGING CALLS.

Butthurt...butt hurt everywhere!

[kalm]

I replied to mvem in the comments on the bigskybball blog, but it seems this place is a little more active so wanted to reply here.

My only problem with that explanation is that it doesn't seem like the whistle blew right away to review it... if you look at the ref underneath the basket, he initially starts to count for five seconds, moving his hand in that motion. After about a second, then he puts his hand up to signal the play to a stop. By that time, then Edmonds is off the court, but he is still counting during the time Edmonds is on the court.

The NAU guy in bounding the ball initially looks toward the side of the court Edmonds is, as if that was his first read to throw the ball in. While he's looking that direction, the ref standing right next to him is counting for the five seconds, not blowing the play dead.

The ref on the sideline, it's tough to get a clear look from all the angles I've seen, but to me it certainly looks like he is backpedaling so get in position for the final play, not turning to head to the review monitor.

I don't have a horse in this race, I am not a fan of NAU or Montana. I also don't think (as I said more than once) that there is any conspiracy for Montana or anything of that sort... I think the refs were a little bit intimidated to call a technical in that environment and in that situation, and the Big Sky is trying to back the call to squash the controversy from getting any bigger.

I can also tell you that I've talked to other Big Sky head coaches, national college basketball writers, and a lot of other people, and the only people who agreed it's a judgement call where not calling a technical foul there was a reasonable call are Montana fans. Which is fine, you're free to think what you will, but everyone I've talked with who is familiar with the sport and is not partial to one team or the other agrees that a technical foul should have been called.

Using logic and details to back up your position....are you familiar with how this fan message board/forum thing works, Jon?

By the way, thanks for keeping the bigskybball blog going. It's nice to have a central location to discuss Big Sky hoops.

-MTJack

This

[grizzaholic]

Are you drunk?

Fans running onto the court ≠ players and bench staff running onto the court.

Yet your very next sentence is

The HC has control (or should have control) over one of those groups, but has zero control over the other.

So the HC isn’t responsible for how his bench behaves?...but he has control over the fans? What kind of bizarro world do you live in.

OK. The way I read your post was way different.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Which is fine if NAU was standing around looking at the ref...but they weren't. NAU was looking to inbound the ball and actually did a fraction of a second after the whistle blew.

This is exactly why it should have been called.

I touched on this on my last comment on bigskybball, but I'll mention it here. The timing of the whistle was irrelevant because the replay stoppage to check the time was inevitable. There was no way the Big Sky refs were going to let NAU inbound the ball then because they were going to go to the monitor no matter what.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

This is exactly why it should have been called.

I touched on this on my last comment on bigskybball, but I'll mention it here. The timing of the whistle was irrelevant because the replay stoppage to check the time was inevitable. There was no way the Big Sky refs were going to let NAU inbound the ball then because they were going to go to the monitor no matter what.

Bustin heads and kickin' ass. Holy Christ the Griz could have used some guys like the fans on here just fucking obliterating the bunch of whiny non Griz on here.

Jesus Christ, the rest of you non Griz bitching about this just gotta pack it in and stfu cuz these Griz guys are just fucking lacing you. Quit embarrassing yourselves.

.. .. ..
.............. ....... .. .............
.............. .. ..........
.... .. .......... ........
....... .. ... ..... ......
... ...... .. ..

[Mvemjsunpx]

I touched on this on my last comment on bigskybball, but I'll mention it here. The timing of the whistle was irrelevant because the replay stoppage to check the time was inevitable. There was no way the Big Sky refs were going to let NAU inbound the ball then because they were going to go to the monitor no matter what.

Bustin heads and kickin' ass. Holy Christ the Griz could have used some guys like the fans on here just fucking obliterating the bunch of whiny non Griz on here.

Jesus Christ, the rest of you non Griz bitching about this just gotta pack it in and stfu cuz these Griz guys are just fucking lacing you. Quit embarrassing yourselves.

.. .. ..
.............. ....... .. .............
.............. .. ..........
.... .. .......... ........
....... .. ... ..... ......
... ...... .. ..

[Mvemjsunpx]

I touched on this on my last comment on bigskybball, but I'll mention it here. The timing of the whistle was irrelevant because the replay stoppage to check the time was inevitable. There was no way the Big Sky refs were going to let NAU inbound the ball then because they were going to go to the monitor no matter what.

Hey Mvem, saw your comment but I'll just reply here!

I have to simply disagree with your post. The ref literally started counting down for a five second call... if it was inevitable, the whistle would have been blown immediately, but there is no indication that is the case.

Let's say Edmonds never runs on the court, and NAU throws the ball in bounds immediately, before any whistle is blown, and fires up a full-courter that misses. Are you telling me you think that the refs go back, review the clock after NAU has already moved onto the next play, and put 0.4 seconds back on the clock and let NAU have the ball again? If that happened, Montana would (rightfully) go nuts.

NAU is holding the ball for a full second plus before the baseline referee holds up his arm signaling the play is stopped. That tells me the stoppage of play is not inevitable, because NAU had time to throw it in.

If Edmonds never rushes the court, and NAU still takes a couple seconds to throw it in, I certainly agree a stoppage of play is very likely there. But unless there is a rule I don't know about that says the clock is always reviewed if a basket is scored with less than a certain amount of time remaining, it's not inevitable. And that leaves room for there to have been interference on the play.

But does the interference count if the ball was never inbounded? It could be like pass interference in football, I guess—it can't be pass interference if the ball isn't thrown to the interfered receiver. Does the ball have to be inbounded before the tech can be called? I don't know, and the rule you cited in an earlier blog post is too vague to really know since it mainly addresses live-ball situations. I'm not convinced this was a live-ball situation, especially with the timeout to review coming into play. I do agree with you that the Griz got lucky to avoid the T, but for me it was fortunate timing that saved them & not an error by the officiating crew.

This situation was very murky and, though I think the non-call was right, it's nowhere near clear-cut either way. To say it's definitive one way or the other is an overstatement, IMO. The Big Sky officials are sticking by the original decision and I haven't heard anyone over their heads openly disagree. I wonder if the NCAA will address this kind of thing in the next rulemaking summit (or whatever they call it).

[mtjack]

I wonder if the NCAA will address this kind of thing in the next rulemaking summit (or whatever they call it).

Enough people who aren't Big Sky Conference fans (media, bloggers, ESPN) have talked about this that maybe someone @ the NCAA will listen and at least review the grey areas of this situation.

It's no stretch to see that just BSC fans complaining isn't going to lead to anything being done. We are too few and far between to have any influence.