LCborn

As a critic, I should add that I just watched a very well-called game between Lenoir City and Alcoa. Easily the best-called game I've seen this year. The officials let the players play. They allowed some banging inside but kept control, they called the fouls on the outside that were necessary, and all-in-all did a very good job. They only called 7 fouls in the second half, but that was about all that needed to be called. The officials were hardly noticed at all, which is as it should be. (It would be interesting for someone from Alcoa to comment because they might disagree: our post players are pretty physical.) Cudos to the officiating team that called tonight's game. Incidentally, Alcoa beat us by 11 and we never really threatened them in the game (dang it).

Cobrafan90: by the same logic, shouldn't we require that all officials be former players? That an official calling the game from under the basket be a former post player? That an official calling the game from the perimeter be a former guard? That only former coaches can hire and fire coaches? Your argument that only those who have officiated are qualified to judge officials has no merit. The experience of officiating is not the only qualification, or even necessarily a valid qualification, for judging officiating.

I don't think anyone has said that officiating is easy. I don't remember anyone in this thread saying, "I could do it better." The arguments that officials are doing the best they can and it isn't an easy job are true. However, those arguments are not really relevant to the issue in question. The issue is that many officials are not good at what they do. That they are trying hard or that they have a difficult job doesn't really matter, any more than it matters to which team is victorious. Games aren't won by the team that works hardest, they are won by the team that scores the most points. Good officials aren't the ones that work the hardest, they are the ones that make good calls. And the difficulty of the job isn't really much of an excuse for their failings, since they are all volunteers and they all accept pay for the work. Think of those excuses for referees in a more mundane setting: if a restaurant serves you something nasty, do you complain and send it back or just eat it because the cook has a tough job? And do you keep going back to that restaurant, say, every Tuesday and Friday night? I think the issue of accountability is a critical problem. If officials aren't rated on their performance they get no feedback on how they are doing. Officials should also be watching game tapes to verify that they are getting calls right and not missing important action. Official statistics might also be helpful, as in counting how many of each foul an offical calls and how many fouls in each quarter, etc. Ah, well, in a perfect world...

I've seen Fulton twice and they are tough. I think the key to them is that they play exceptional team defense.

There has been some joking around dist 4AA that we should go back to 2 officials, because it will cost 2/3 as much per game and we'll have 2/3 as many bad calls per game. Three is better if you have 3 good ones; adding a bad one to two good ones makes 3 worse than 2. Also, the poor officiating we've seen isn't routinely biased, just bad, and bad for both teams.

I don't know the whole story but he didn't dress for the game, although he was there. He hit the floor a number of times vs. Fulton on Wednesday, so it could have been an injury.

Here's another story from district 4AA. In tonight's Kingston-LC game, a post player popped out in the corner to challenge a shot. The shot went up, and the post turned and screened the shooter out. Nothing really extraordinary, the shooter wasn't knocked down or even hit very hard. Just a strong blockout, like post players everywhere are taught. The ref whistled a foul. Nothing wrong with that, it probably was too much contact on the perimeter. But then the ref threatened the post player, saying that it was a cheap shot and if he ever did it again, he (the ref) would put him on the bench for the rest of the game. Then, the ref tried to give the shooter 2 shots, even though the foul was clearly committed and blown long after the shot was away (the post allowed the shooter to land after the shot, before he made contact). Luckily, the ref was overruled by his partners. I think the ref was out of line, both for the lecture (and threat) and for trying to enforce an inappropriate penalty for the foul. I have noticed, though, that some refs single out strong post players. Any coincidence that these refs are usually small fellas, like the guy in my story? I thought refs were supposed to enforce the rules: it would be better if they didn't try to be equalizers, but just fair judges of those rules.

It was a terrific ball game. Hats off to Kingston, they never quit even though they never led in regulation. LC was hurt by not having Anthongy Singleton, their leading scorer, available, and by having their starting post foul out with 3 minutes left in regulation. Those last two fouls were pretty weak, but the refs did a fair job overall. They did much better in the boys' game than in the girls'.

It depends on the LC wingers and guards. If they get scared, start playing hot potato around the perimeter, and dribble-driving, Kingston by 10. If LC post players get 10 or more touches in the offense, LC by 10. LC posts don't have to score a lot but they have to be a threat in order to open up the outside. It's ridiculous how little LC uses those guys in the offense, in some games. Maybe they smell bad or the wings don't like them, who can tell?

In district 4AA it seems to be considerably worse than last year. I saw a game in which the official tossed the ball to a player out of bounds. The player dropped the ball. It rolled into play, the player reached out, rolled it back to the end line, picked it up, and threw it in to re-start play. Pardon me, isn't that a violation? The official was standing right there, watching. It's one thing to miss the judgement calls, but rules violations like that should be easy to call. Also, the officials I've seen have been very spotty about calling reaching and slapping around the perimeter and over-the-back inside. One LC girl was slapped hard enough in the face (while dribbling outside) to cause a nose bleed. The official didn't call the slap, but did make her leave the game because of the blood. What's up with that? Even if you play "no blood, no foul" that should have been a foul.

I've seen Fulton twice and Loudon once. I'd rank Fulton ahead of Loudon.

Loudon is definitely a fine team. One thing, though: check out their schedule. Most of the good teams they've beaten have come on Loudon's home court or at neutral sites. I think upcoming games at AE, Anderson County, etc. will tell us more about how good they really are. They are at Oliver Springs tonight, which is always a tough place to play, but OS is having a rough year and got whacked in a make-up game with Lenoir City last night. Loudon should be able to handle them.

He impressed me as having good quickness and ball-handling skills when Lenoir City played Greenback, but nothing truly exceptional in terms of other players I've seen this year. He did seem to be a very good shooter. While he was probably Greenback's leading scorer, he certainly didn't dominate LC's guards or take over the game (which LC won by something like 59-36, at Greenback).

Daniel Mashburn of Lenoir City is pretty good. He's fast and get's a good jump, very smooth getting under the ball as well. The corner outfielders joke that they only play from their starting position to the lines and Daniel handles the rest. He's a good hitter who is constantly working on his swing, and a good kid to boot.

I think that's a problem with the men players, not the women coaches. In fact, it's a problem beyond basketball: if you aren't able to learn from someone because you disrespect them before they speak, you're a fool. (Teen-aged boys acting foolish? Can't be true!) You can learn about a book from its cover if it's one of those cheap paperback ones, but you have to spend some time with the ones that come in cloth bindings to discern their quality. Yee-haw, that's our sermon for the day!

CoachT, some of the games on the schedules aren't correctly marked as district games. Here are the current (1/14/01, AM) standings in District 4 AA: Loudon 4-0 Kingston 2-0 Anderson Co 2-1 Oliver Springs 2-2 Lenoir City 2-3 Scott Co 0-6

I think Lenoir City qualifies as a dangerous team with a poor record (6-7). They lost by 3 or fewer to Loudon, Oliver Springs, Walton (Georgia 5A team), and Davy Crockett, mostly on late turnovers. They also blew a huge lead at Alcoa. LC plays good defense but is a head-case team on offense. When they run the offense with patience and feed their post players, they do well. When the wings put their heads down and play dribble-tag, they turn the ball over and don't score. If they play with good discipline on offense they can be very dangerous.

Erik Draper from Lenoir City may be set to have a break out year. He finished last spring on a 12-22 tear, hit about .500 over the summer, and had a 68-pitch complete game win at the NABF world series in Memphis. He should finally get his chance behind the plate this spring, which will help LC be stronger defensively than they've been for a couple of years.

In Friday games, Hampton over Sevier Co. in double overtime for 7th place (I forget the score--it was about 10 pts, I think). Lenoir City over Sullivan South 51-40 (tied 24-24 at halftime, LC made a terrific run in the 3rd, sparked by their defense). Chuckey-Doak vs. Crockett was just getting started when I left. LC will play the Chuckey-Doak vs. Crockett winner in the championship game Saturday night at 8:00.