Rules? Who needs rules?

by Glenn Logan on Jan 27, 2008 12:03 PM EST in Commentary

Came across this article by Jerry Tipton today. Apparently, Tipton was getting tired of Wildcat fans complaining about the calls, and interviewed Gerald Boudreaux, the SEC coordinator of officials, who basically defended all the questionable calls many Cat fans have recently complained about.

So I thought I would compare Boudreaux's comments to the official NCAA basketball rules, and see if his comments jibe with what is presumably the Bible of NCAA officiating. I'll take them one at a time, in the order presented in the article, as follows:

The call of an intentional personal foul on Derrick Jasper during the Tennessee game:

"Even though he sticks his hand in there to try to play the ball, because of the fact he is behind, that should be an intentional foul," said Boudreaux, who attended the Kentucky-Tennessee game. ...

"It was not anything hard," Boudreaux said of Jasper's contact with Smith. "Nothing flagrant. But in a number of situations where the defense is behind, any contact can jeopardize the safety of the shooter."

Generally, fans mistakenly believe going for the ball excuses such contact or that the "severity of the contact" determines whether it's an intentional foul, Boudreaux said. Not true.

A defender can contest the shot from the side, but not from behind.

So what advice would Boudreaux give the defender stuck in Jasper's position? "If I don't catch up, I need to let him go," he said.

So what does the NCAA rulebook say? It says this (Note: This is a little long, so please continue below the fold.):

Intentional personal foul.

An intentional foul shall be a personal foul that, on the basis of an official's observation of the act, may be purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while playing the ball;

2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;

3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;

4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and

5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.

Now, we have to judge based on the rule. Jasper certainly doesn't violate 2, 4, or 5. So lets look at 1. Was the contact excessive? Well, it was a foul, so by definition it was contact, but because there was very little actual contact with the player (i.e. no push or grab), it was clearly not excessive. So how about 4, apparently the crux of Boudreaux's argument? Jasper was playing the ball, reached for and actually struck it out of the player's hands. If a push occurred, it was incidental to the intended play. But there is definitely some wiggle room in this provision. Fortunately for my argument and unfortunately for Boudreaux, that isn't the last word the rulebook has on the subject.

Now let's look at the Officiating Guidelines section, in which calling the Intentional Personal Foul is specifically addressed.

Section 4. Intentional Personal Fouling

Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:

a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player is an intentional personal foul.

b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s) around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are intentional personal fouls.

c. Grabbing a player's arm or body while initially attempting to gain control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.

d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an intentional personal foul.

e. Undue roughness used to stop the game clock is an intentional personal foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul.

f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

The intentional personal foul must be called within the spirit and intent of the intentional-foul rule. [emphasis mine]

Well, now Boudreaux's argument looks much, much weaker. Jasper clearly violated none of these examples, except possibly the "running into the back of a player who has the ball." As much basketball as I have watched, I have seen many players struck or pushed from behind, either incidental to a play on the ball or deliberately, and less than 10% of them have been called an intentional personal foul. Officials generally call an intentional on a play where the defensive player had to hit the man in order to stop the score, not the ball, or hit the man so hard in order to get to the ball that the contact was dangerous. Jasper's case included neither. In my judgment, Boudreux is fudging the rulebook to defend a bad call.

Bottom line: Boudreaux is either wrong, or if he is right, the NCAA rules are being misinterpreted by 95% of college officials, including the ones under his supervision. He is either wrong for not correcting them or wrong about the call. In either case, he is wrong.

Concerning Nick Calathes' contact with Ramel Bradley in the backcourt, Boudreaux had this to say:

"I saw accidental contact after the play was over," Boudreaux said. "(Calathes) lost his balance and fell into the Kentucky player. ... It was during a dead ball. It was clearly not intentional, not one of those head butts. It was one of those momentum things. He couldn't stop."

Bradley swiped away Calathes' offer of a helping hand. Boudreaux saw frustration.

"When you get put on your butt, you don't know where it came from," he said. "You just know you're on your butt."

Once again, we go to the rule book, just because these things happen to be written down, presumably for a reason:

Section 3. Player/Substitute Technical Fouls

Art. 1. Committing an unsportsmanlike act, including, but not limited to, the following:

    a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment.

    b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene gestures toward another player or bench personnel.

    c. (Women) Non-flagrant foul that involves contact or causes contact with an opponent while the ball is dead.

        (Men) An intentional technical foul involves contacting an opponent in an excessive but non-flagrant manner while the ball is dead.

    d. Purposely obstructing an opponent's vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his or her eyes.

    e. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.

    f. Knowingly attempting a free throw to which he or she is not entitled.

    g. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction.

    h. Using tobacco.

My recollection is that he incident involving Calathes did not involve a loss of balance, at least until after he ran into Bradley. Calathes was running back toward the Florida bench after the ball was whistled dead for the under 4 minute media timeout, and ran over Bradley while celebrating on his way to the bench. I don't know if he intended to do that, but the rule doesn't require the contact to be intentional. It simply requires excessive, non-flagrant contact, and it clearly was both. Once again, either Boudreaux doesn't know the rules, or he is fudging them for the sake of convenience.

Bottom line: Boudreax is wrong, indisputably. There is no wiggle room on this one.

Finally, regarding the multiple non-calls on Jarvis Varnado during the Mississippi State game:

It came down to judgment call on Varnado."I wish it was easy to explain it," Boudreaux said of the contact on blocked shots. "Philosophically, we'd like the big men to play. Not to gain an advantage, but blocked shots are a part of the game.

Basically, it's a judgment call. Some contact is permissible. How much and where on the body must be judged quickly.

"I have a thing about ticky-tack fouls," Boudreaux said.

In other words, it was a home call. This, I can live with, as long as they are consistent. Home calls are a fact of life in basketball and have been since the dawn of time (or at least, since Naismith put up his peach basket and established rules). We all hate them, but we all must honestly admit that they do tend to even out. UK definitely gets more favorable calls at home, as does every other SEC team.

Bottom line: Beaudreax is right in the sense that the officials have and continue to call fouls based on their judgment of the effect of the contact, and that can vary significantly game to game and crew to crew.

As to the argument that all these were judgment calls, I would simply say this -- if we are just going to officiate by what we think is right and wrong, why be so specific? Just make a general rule outlawing all contact and let the officials judge it how they will. To my mind, that's what is happening anyway. They aren't really applying the rules, they are simply applying their instant judgment, and if Boudreaux's defense of the apparently indefensible is any indication, they don't have to worry about sanction as long as there is some remotely plausible way to justify the decision. And it can apparently be pretty darn remote.

So Boudreax, at least in this writer's opinion, gets 1/3, or 33%. Thank God his officiating crews get it right more often.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good Article IMO

I agree with Mr. Boudreaux - calls were correct.

My stepdaughter played 10 years of pro hoops, 4 years in college, and 2 years overseas (plus FIBA and Olympic competition).

All she wanted from refs was consistency. Call it the same all game long. Refs do make errors.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 27, 2008 1:33 PM EST reply actions

what

so i guess if they call the game bad consistently all is well?

Jasper's intentional was garbage, he was clearly goin for the ball......so you can't go for the ball if they're in front of you? if thats the case then there are plenty of intentionals that never get called. How many times do you see a player dribbling up the floor and have a defender come from behind to knock the ball out. Whats the difference? He's going for the ball from behind just the same.

by spork on Jan 27, 2008 8:35 PM EST up reply actions

Yep!

To the players, yes.

If the refs are consistent - this is a foul, that is not - they adjust their play accordingly.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 28, 2008 8:11 PM EST up reply actions

Officiating

I like Gerald Boudreaux. He was an excellent official. Along with Don Rutledge, John Clougherty and a few others they represent competent, consistent offiating. Unfortunately those men are now retired.

Over the last few years the officiating has steadily trended downhill. I would have to go back and rewatch several of the games this year to pinpoint the garbage calls, but overall the officiating has been abysmal. The men who have come in and replaced the retired, are not up to the standards set by their predecessors.

The call on Jasper was one of the worst calls I have ever seen. There simply is no supporting the call as evidenced by Boudreaux's political speak in answering Tipton's question.

I certainly don't find fault with Tipton questioning Boudreaux, but what did he think he was going to say? He's not going to publicly throw his officials under the bus.

The fact that he has terminated 14 officials over the last 3 years tells me somebody is paying attention, but much more work, recruiting and training is needed before the level of officiating rises to being competent on a consistent basis.

One of the by-products of having a high percentage of incompetents is that their numerous mistakes are magnified at NCAA Tournament time. There are so many games to be played, but not enough able officials to call the games. Resulting in a plethora of bad, game changing calls- By the way, bad calls don't even out in the tournament- Just ask Villanova who was robbed of a Final Four berth a few years ago. Some may even point to the UK v. Michigan St. game where Sparks was bumped on his made three point shot at the end of regulation. I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that if Boudreaux's goal is to be correct 94% of the time, I'd say they are at least 15-20 percentage points short of that number.

Given time, I am sure he will eventually get to where he wants to be as far as quality. I realize it is a tough job, made tougher by the fact that the athletes playing today are bigger, stronger, and faster than 20-30 years ago.

It's very tough to take though, when ones team plays as hard as possible, the coach is coaching his arse off, and all of that hard work and dedication is renderd moot because some jack-leg official is incompetent.

Some theorize that good team overcome bad calls. Baloney! Teams shouldn't have to overcome anything except their opponent.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 27, 2008 4:12 PM EST reply actions

Officiating

The call on Jasper was one of the worst calls I have ever seen. There simply is no supporting the call as evidenced by Boudreaux's political speak in answering Tipton's question.

I certainly don't find fault with Tipton questioning Boudreaux, but what did he think he was going to say? He's not going to publicly throw his officials under the bus.

The bottom line is that if Boudreaux's goal is to be correct 94% of the time, I'd say they are at least 15-20 percentage points short of that number.

Some theorize that good team overcome bad calls. Baloney! Teams shouldn't have to overcome anything except their opponent.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 27, 2008 4:14 PM EST reply actions

Georgetown - WV ... block vs goal tending

Did you guys see the end of the Georgetown - WV game last night? What did you think of the end of that game? I thought it was a good no call. The blocked shot to end the game looked like it was close to the apex, but not on the way down to me. Huggins was throwing a fit, but it looked like a good block to me. I would have been difficult for the officials to make that call, being that close. Regardless of the outcome, it was an excellent game.

by cthom on Jan 27, 2008 6:03 PM EST reply actions

Didn't see it.

Sorry.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 27, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

bad call

goal tending.....WVU got robbed

by spork on Jan 27, 2008 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

Definately...

a good call. This is coming from someone who is usually inclined to bag on officials but in this case they did get it right. The ball was at its peak, call it whatever you want; perfect timing or pure luck, Ewing jr. made a great play.

by wldcatsfreak on Jan 27, 2008 9:37 PM EST up reply actions

I agree.

Also, if after watching the replay of a call 2 or 3 times, and it's still difficult to ascertain, I find it impossible to find fault with the official. Afterall, they have to make the call in real time, without benefit of replay.(Most of the time anyway)

by Ken Howlett on Jan 27, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

In Slow Mo, It's GT But...

At regular speed, probably not able to call it GT.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 28, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions

I think I agree

In slo-mo it seemed to me that the ball had started its downward arc a hair of a second before it was blocked. I watched every replay (2 or 3) but still wouldn't swear on whether it was a block or a goal tend.

At regular speed it seemed like a good block. Definitley too close to call though, as an official one has to go with a block. I certainly can't find fault with the call. Except that I was pulling for the Mountaineers.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 28, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions

the west virginia

player should have used the backboard...although there was no way he saw ewing jr. coming. great play by him. as for whether it was a block or goaltending, i don't think there's a clear cut answer. depends on sees it. personally i would have called it a blocked shot.

GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!

by UKWildCatFanatic on Jan 27, 2008 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

Calathes/Bradley

I think the majority of officials would have given that Calathes/Bradley incident a no-call. I respectfully submit that your interpretation of the rules and conclusion that "there is no wiggle room, Boudreax is wrong, indisputably" is in err. You're ignoring one very important word: intentional.

(Men) An intentional technical foul involves contacting an opponent in an excessive but non-flagrant manner while the ball is dead.

... and it says that for a reason. If all incidental contact between players as they jogged back to their respective benches was to be called a technical foul, it'd be a boring game.

Calathes' contact on Bradley was incidental. You're right in that Calathes was not losing his balance. He was jogging with his head turned toward his bench; the camera shot doesn't make it clear but the way he's concentrating it looks like a coach or player is saying something to him and he's focused on that. He sees Bradley and takes an angle to avoid him early in his route but Bradley then "drifts" back into him by approx. one full step. Bradley's head is also turned.

Bradley might have invited the foul, or might not. The camera angle is not clear enough (it shows the back of Ramel's head) but the collision itself leaves no doubt as to whether it was premeditated or not. Calathes is a good player, but even he can't can't act out that kind of surprise and off-balance 'bounce' he took when he collided with Bradley's body. You can see his face very clearly during the collision: it was one of total calm just before impacting Bradley and total surprise immediately upon bumping him. When it's intentional, players subsconciously shift their weight and prep for a collision even when they're trying to do a nice acting job and draw a foul; you see this all the time in a game. Calathes didn't do that. His body was relaxed and simply in jogging mode when he was surprised by the collision with Bradley.

If there was any doubt about whether it was an accident, it was eradicated when Calathes fell all over himself (pun intended) to help Bradley up right away. But Bradley swatted Calathes' outstretched hand away, which to me was a disappointing gesture. It was either part of an acting job by Bradley or a genuinely unsportsmanlike act. If Bradley was truly caught off guard -- I have my doubts -- I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was just frustration or annoyance at being on his keester at that moment in time. But given Bradley's history of being involved in so many of these types of incidents and Calathes'... absolute lack of being involved in any of them, it's hard to do that.

To sum it up, the official made the right call because the collision appeared to be unintentional. Therefore the rule you quoted would not apply.

Orange and Blue Hue: The World through GATOR-colored Glasses -- http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Jan 28, 2008 8:56 AM EST reply actions

In my opinion ...

you are wrong, for reasons already explained. Intent is not a required element of the foul. A careless or reckless act causing excessive contact is sufficient.

I saw the play precisely, and the replay. Calathes' mouth was open in a yell, he was clearly celebrating and not paying any attention to where he was going. That is a foul during play, and it's a foul during a dead ball. The name of the call is "Intentional", but intent isn't required -- carelessness or recklessness will do, at least one of which Calathes easily satisfied.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 28, 2008 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

Doesn't make sense...

Intent has to be a part of calling an intentional foul. You do realize that, yes? Otherwise when incidental contact occurs it'd be a foul.

You're choosing to assign the word "careless" but I think "incidental" is more appropriate. Players were still returning to their respective benches.

I'm inclined to think not only did Calathes not commit any kind of foul here (and the officials all agreed even after the fact, apparently) but that Bradley might have caused this. But that's neither here nor there.

Orange and Blue Hue: The World through GATOR-colored Glasses -- http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Jan 28, 2008 11:55 AM EST up reply actions

I think GP may be right on this one

I do think that Calathes was not paying enough attention and generally acting carelessly when he ran over Bradley. And I would argue that it should have been called as a regular foul. Mowing somebody over, whether intentional or not is a foul.

But it cannot be an intentional technical foul because it did not appear intentional. It violates the letter and spirit of the rule if an intentional technical foul did not require intent, as argued by Tru. I understand Tru's reading, but I think that he mistakenly left off the most important aspect of the intentional foul rule.

by senowen on Jan 28, 2008 12:08 PM EST up reply actions

Look GP ...

even if I were to grant your argument, the foul should have been called under article 16:

Art. 16. A player flagrantly or excessively contacting an opponent while the ball is dead. [emphasis mine]

Intent is irrelevant. In both cases. The contact was clearly excessive, and obviously due to carelessness on the part of Calathes. It was a technical foul, and it was not properly called.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 28, 2008 12:14 PM EST up reply actions

The problem is...

... officials can't call that all the time. Players are constantly bumping into each other, falling down after the whistle blows, etc. It's a physical game; these things happen.

I think 99% of the unintentional stuff isn't called. Calathes' collision with Bradley passes the sniff test as being completely unintentional and so it wasn't called. The official made the right call and the had of officials agreed. Case closed.

This kind of foul is not a black and white "rule". It is a judgement call as are so many calls in basketball. The ref could have called it as a regular foul -- perhaps -- but it would violate the spirit of the rule and I don't think college basketball would be well served by ruling accidental collisions a foul. Leeway is granted to the official to assign the foul if it is "excessive or flagrant". This incident was neither.

Orange and Blue Hue: The World through GATOR-colored Glasses -- http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Jan 28, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions

I simply ...

disagree with your conclusion. To me, the contact was obviously and unquestionably excessive, and carelessly so.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 28, 2008 10:19 PM EST up reply actions

Calathes

Calathes has had about 3 months of history here. I dont think you can use the whole "given his lack of histroy argument"

check back in three years and then we can discuss this situation with all the facts.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Jan 28, 2008 11:45 AM EST reply actions

Kid is pure class...

He's respectful to his opponent before and after the game. You should hear all the nice things he had to say about Kentucky. He was like that throughout high school, too. He's a competitor, but he has always displayed sterling sportsmanship.

I think I'll go with Calathes over the big-mouthed New Yorker who seems to find himself in situations like this one every other game. Come on, man, take the blue blinders off.

Orange and Blue Hue: The World through GATOR-colored Glasses -- http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Jan 28, 2008 11:57 AM EST up reply actions

Both young men ...

are fine. I'm not trying to impute bad behavior to Calathes, and certainly Bradley has his share of attitude. I have not seen Calathes misbehave on the court so far, so I am inclined to accept that he is a classy kid. He sure looks like one to me.

But whacking on Bradley seems a little unfair. In the instant case, it was Calathes who initiated the contact. I think Bradley could have behaved better when Calathes extended his hand, foul or no, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the wronged party.

by Glenn Logan on Jan 28, 2008 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

Knocking on Bradley

I have to agree that this discussion is not a judgement on player personalities but of the rule. GP, stick around and you will see Tru is as good a lawyer as he is at his chosen profession.
Just ask him about his view on NLOI's and the binding nature of the agreement.

I have to jab back a little and say that after all of the very "talkative" players with often very demonstrative gestures from the recent UF history, climbing on Calathes Alterboy back to reach the high ground so you can shoot down at Bradley is a little interesting.

That said, I would KILL to have him. He really seems to be exactly what Billy D needed to a) reload talent and b) take a step up in the "perception" area. Not a knock. I am a PR and Marketing Consultant by trade and love to step out of the fan world and look at sports and politics in a different way.

To load up talent and win a NC and then get them to stay and win 2 is huge. But not nearly as huge as continuing the trend and Calathes will end up being the key to UF's longevity from this point forward.

Peace.

by wilson452 on Jan 28, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

Bradley

I accept your jab. I'm sure you're talking about our beloved Noah. That was his personality but he was never mean-spirited about it.

Bradley seems to really be improving as of late and I congratulate your Cats on putting the pieces together. Nice job!

Thanks for the compliment on Calathes. He's on sort of a Tebow track right now in Gainesville. Pretty hard to be Big Man On Campus as long as Timmy's in town but he's well on his way. He seems to have a bit of Pistol Pete and Larry Bird in him. Exciting player.

As for the discussion about the "rule", I just can't see an accidental collision like that during a dead ball situation become a regularly-called foul. Stuff like that happens in practically every game and it is rarely called unless it's truly excessive, and that "bump" wasn't. It was obviously an accident and in my view the ref made the right call.

If Calathes were on the opposite side of "the collision" I'd feel the same way. Don't call it.

Orange and Blue Hue: The World through GATOR-colored Glasses -- http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on Jan 28, 2008 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

Don't play until Saturday...

...so I might as well share with my comrades the 4th most hated loss in my official "UK Most Hated Loss" catalogue.

I realize we're discussing officiating on this thread, I promise I will get to that.

The most hated loss in my time, for me, is the '86 LSU Elite 8 game. That team could have won the National Championship. Asking a team to beat a good team 4 times in one year is ridiculous. Thankfully, that game led the NCAA to tweak a bit the selection committees placement of teams. (Kentucky had played Alabama the previous game in the Sweet 16. A team UK had beaten twice during SEC play.)

#2 on my list is the '84 Georgetown, Final Four
game. Cost UK a National Title.

#3 is UL in '83, in the NCAA Tournament. Dark, dark day.

#4 Arizona in the '97 Title game. I don't want to talk about it.

At last, we come to the reason for this post. My 5th most hated loss was Feb. 24, 1993 at Tennessee. A regular season game, no-less.

Allan Houston at the line with like 3-4 seconds left in the game. UK up 2 points.

Houston makes his first, but intends to miss his second. As he launches his second FT, the ball goes not even halfway to the basket, and Houston runs into the middle of the lane. I COULD NOT BELIEVE IT. Game over, right. Wrong. No whistle. 6 eyes looking at the play, and no whistle. Of course the ball falls right into Houston's hands and Jaron Brown( yes, from Fairdale) slides down the baseline to the corner. Not a body near him, he catches and shoots a trey, swish. End of game. Never in my life have I witnessed such a blatant missed call at the end of a game. I swear I thought Pitino was going to stroke-out right then and there.

I am sure many of you remember that game. But, UK didn't lose to UT for another 6 years. Paybacks a bitch

by Ken Howlett on Jan 29, 2008 12:35 AM EST reply actions

Proof your posts you dumba--!

Of course my first sentense is incorrect, it should read that UT is my 5th most hated loss, not 4th.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 29, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions

Damn, I'm losing it.

Houston did not make his first FT (as previously reported), he missed it, which is of course why he intentionally missed his second.

Anybody need work as an Editor?

by Ken Howlett on Jan 29, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions

More On 1986

I think UK had beaten Bama 4 times in 86 and LSU 3 times.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/Statistics/1985-86.html

Amazing, that 86 team. Same guys (except Irving Thomas for Bret Bearup) were 18-13 in 1985. Then 32-4 in 86.

Toughest L include 1970 to Jax and 1975 to UCLA.

by FortyYearCatFan on Jan 29, 2008 6:50 AM EST up reply actions

UK did beat 'Bama 4 times in '86.

I had forgotten about the SEC Tournament victory.

I think the improvement from '85 to '86 was just a natural progression of talent. Bennett and Blackmon both stepped up their games considerably.
Plus, Davender was a frosh in '85. He began to really assert himself and play with confidence in '86. Add that to the fact that Walker was unconscious all year, and you have yourself and fine collaboration of talent.

Those players developed quite well, and became a good to great team.

by Ken Howlett on Jan 29, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions