Printable View
Didn't see the incident, so no clue if or if not, but I do know who uses the name BettyBoop and well, they have probably seen more basketball than most people on this forum and probably you two arguing combined.
I do like the argument though, nothing wrong with 2 sides having different opinions.
Burton has some work to do!
But on a positive note, I saw them beginning to come together more as a team during the second game.
I think this tournament was their first game of the season due to the extended football season. But, I'm not sure that would fully explain their performance. The team really doesn't have any depth of roster and is relying one one or two playmakers.
I expect Burton to get better by the end of the season.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So does Burton stink or is it still football season for them?
[/ QUOTE ]
I take issue with how you saw it and the assumptions you're making concerning it. You're painting a picture of this particular kid as a "dirty player" to all who read this thread unduely. That's where I draw the line. That's why I take issue with you disagreeing.
And if I'm big enough to stand by what I saw and what I know to be the factual truth, and you're still standing on assumptions then that's your problem.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So now you're attacking someone with only 48 posts and a screename you don't like? Talking about questioning people's integrity. Our of curiosity, how far are you willing to go to try and validate an infraction made by this player?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey--your own medicine doesn't taste so good does it. Assumptions are not a smart thing to do there cvcgrad. Did you go there when they were a 2 year school or something? Yeesh...
And as for how far I'll go? I'm not validating anything. It is an infraction to hit the kid in the head with the ball (not the face as you've apparently imagined), wether it was an accident (as the case is) or intentional (as you think it to be). I've not denied that. I'm saying that it was a weak call by the official because that infraction is RARELY called when it really happens almost once or twice a game. I'm not questioning the rule, I'm questioning the timing of the application...and even at that, I gave the supposition that the atmosphere of the game with the prior T's on Grundy influenced that call. That was my original beef.
My beef now is that you're taking a kid you don't know from Adam, and basing your opinion of him as a ballplayer over one action on the court to anyone that cares to read this board...and all based on what you assume his intentions are. You can say that you think Coeburn's an excellent team all you want, but as long as you're giving that backhanded compliment by following it up with words like unsportsmanlike and dirty...I won't stand for that.
BTW--you're an agile individual--you dodged this question like a bullet:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...so what exactly are your allegiances there pal? Where are you from? What is your stake in this?
[/ QUOTE ]
...simple question for a college grad like you. Why not answer it instead of ignore it?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I expect Burton to get better by the end of the season.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do as well mega, but there were two kids, one last night and the night before, that took an injury to the ankle and knee respectively. That's why they've only got 7 healthy on the bench now. I think there are only 9 varsity players for Burton--that's a shame. They're fully relying on Zo to make plays, and he's a good ballplayer, one of the fastest and court savvy there is round here, but he can't carry that squad, and he's not getting much help.
I don't personally know BettyBoop, but I'll take your word for it. She/he seemed to agree from their vantage point that it was a flagrant foul.
I was sitting not far from the timekeeper/scorekeepers table and heard two referees concur that it was in fact an "unsportsmanlike" foul. That would suggest to me that they at least believed it was not an "accident."
The "argument" seems to be whether or not it was intentional or if the foul should have been called against Coeburn at all. As far as the rules go, I don't think it matters whether or not it was intentional. If a player hits another player in the head or face with a ball, it is a foul.
Maybe there are different rules that apply when Coeburn is playing?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Didn't see the incident, so no clue if or if not, but I do know who uses the name BettyBoop and well, they have probably seen more basketball than most people on this forum and probably you two arguing combined.
I do like the argument though, nothing wrong with 2 sides having different opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sadly enough, you're making the assumptions and don't even realize it.
I'm not "painting a picture of this particular kid as a dirty player". I believe the kid lost his cool and let his temper get the best of him. That doesn't make him a "dirty" player. It makes him human just like every other player on the court. But when emotions get out of control and tempers flare, players need to leave the game. It doesn't matter if its Coeburn, Grundy, Castlewood, Norton, Clintwood, or any other team playing.
When a player of this caliber and a team with the talent of Coeburn gets to that point, it is very unfortunate. Even more unfortunate are fans who seemingly want to justify it at any cost.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I take issue with how you saw it and the assumptions you're making concerning it. You're painting a picture of this particular kid as a "dirty player" to all who read this thread unduely. That's where I draw the line. That's why I take issue with you disagreeing.
And if I'm big enough to stand by what I saw and what I know to be the factual truth, and you're still standing on assumptions then that's your problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The "argument" seems to be whether or not it was intentional or if the foul should have been called against Coeburn at all. As far as the rules go, I don't think it matters whether or not it was intentional. If a player hits another player in the head or face with a ball, it is a foul.
[/ QUOTE ]
No--that's not the argument--the argument is how you're saying it was intentional and that he was out to hurt the kid because he lost his temper. I asked Hollyfield what his intent was and his intent was to do a ball fake, not to spike the kid in the head, and he hadn't lost his temper. Regardless, it was a mistake and the correct call was made--I've not denied that once. The call was correct by rule...I'm just saying it's an obscure and rarely enforced rule...though it could be enforced a lot more often, and was pretty weak given the flow of the game.
It all boils down to this--you're assuming the kid lost his temper. You're assuming it was intentional. I actually went and did the groundwork to question what happened instead of assuming the intent, but yet you're disagreeing with the kid's word, saying that he would probably lie before admitting that he did it on purpose after the fact when nothing could happen to him. That's what gets me riled--calling someone out, saying they should have been tossed from a ball game because of your perceived intent, and when they say it wasn't something they meant to do, you call them a liar.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Even more unfortunate are fans who seemingly want to justify it at any cost.
[/ QUOTE ]
READ. I'm not justifying the action. Unintentional as it was, it was wrong and the correct call was made. However, the call is rarely made when it could be applied a lot more often in ballgames, which makes me question why it was called then, and when the kid told me the truth about what happened, I'm upset that other people won't take his word for it when it was HIS action regardless of what you think you saw. Only he knows what he was thinking--you don't, Bettyboop doesn't, Rocketer doesn't, George Bush doesn't, I don't...OH WAIT--actually I do because I asked the kid instead of assuming.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
But when emotions get out of control and tempers flare, players need to leave the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
If this is the case then you also must believe along with whoever agrees with this comment that the Grundy kids who got the T's must have been tossed out too. You've got to do something unsportsmanlike 99% of the time to get a technical foul (1% for calling a TO when there are none remaining and having too many men on the court). That's the thing though--you keep going back to tempers...which I've seen Hollyfield's flare up since he was a boy--I know his temper, seen it in action. This particular incident wasn't temper, it was a ball fake gone wrong, but you go ahead and keep believing what you think and perceive to be true instead of Hollyfield's word.
This isn't a Coeburn bias thing--let's say one of the kids I know off of Clintwood, Burton, Wise, Pound, or Oak Hill's team would have had this called on them, and they got a technical. I would have asked them what happened with the play, and if they say "I meant to do it" then fine...they meant to do it and it they shoulda been tossed. If they tell me "I just pumped the ball too hard and couldn't stop it from bumping him on the head" then I'll believe them because only they know what they were thinking--the call of the technical is still deserved because it is rule, but by no means should they have been tossed. I wouldn't have assumed it was done on purpose in spite of their direct recollection of what happened and what their intent was.
And the refs must agree with my POV b/c I think a technical should have been called and Hollyfield not tossed b/c it was an unintentional infraction with no malice...and guess what. That's what happened.
So Pound plays Grundy tonight at 7?
I'll sort of defend the view that a_football_fan is taking, in that, there are rules that could be enforced regularly in games, that aren't and it does seem like referees sometimes get caught up in the atmosphere of a game, particularly if its getting physical, they have let some stuff go and its starting to get out of hand, they then try to go 180 degrees the other way and call something that hasn't been called all game or go overboard to try and pull the game back under control.
We're all victims of our perception, if you know someone or are pulling for a team, you see things one way when someone else may see it completely the other way.
The way it sounds, by the letter of the law, the play was called correctly, but by the letter of the law, a coach isn't out of his coaching box, and when we played Pound the other night, Jack Hamilton as much as I like him, was hardly in the coaching box. So yes, they could have called him for it, but the game never entered that dimension of a game, where the refs had missed some big calls, were hearing it, had probably let it get out of hand and was looking for something to either calm it down or stick it to the crowd who was probably giving it to them and make no mistake, the Coeburn crowd likes to make noise, and there are more than a few refs who get tired of having every call they make questioned by some 'kids' and they'll turn around and do something just to take the wind out of their sails.
That's one problem I have with crowds being 'loud for the sake of being loud'. I'm as critical of bad calls as anybody but when you are criticial of every call, no matter if its obvious or not, you don't do anything but hurt your team, because we have some refs who do not like to be shown up or embarassed.
I have heard a lot about this Evan Boiling kid. He evan told one of our player's that we didnt have anyone to shut him down. Well I seen him play last night and he was a "gamebreaker" please... the kid had 10 points. If thats your playmaker then u need to do something and try to get someone else the ball a little bit. Congrats to Kelly on their win last night though. It just kills me that he would talk about himself like that and then he cant back it up. I have seen him play twice and neither time was nothing great.