From the paper:

"When a game goes so long, every play is magnified, every call and every non-call is the difference in the game," Ninnis said.

Adelaide was particularly incensed by a technical foul incurred by captain Brett Maher for a remark to a team-mate.

"We might have to take that call and show it to the NBL this week," Ninnis said.

At the risk of a league fine, the coach could comment no further but it is clear an under-current of unhappiness existed in how the match was officiated, particularly when Hodge fouled out on a charging call.

"But you can get too caught up in that," Ninnis said.

"It was a great game and strange things occurred."
___________________________

I couldn't believe it either - maybe 'me' can give us some more info...

Couldnt see or hear anything... he didnt even look THAT upset...certainly wasnt shouting or waving hands etc.

hometown call!
Game wildcats

As a spectator in the crowd did you think the calls were blantantly biased towards the Wildcats?

The impression I got from listening to the audio feed was that the home team got grilled by the referees just as bad as Adelaide did.

Did you notice a switch in consistency between the second half of the game and the overtime periods?

Ninnis suggests as much but I assumed that was the perception of a frustrated coach who had just watched a key win get taken away by the opposition.

I didnt notice any significant biased referreeing, in fact i felt the refs did a pretty good job in a very competitive, high pressure and relatively physical game.

I have said in the past that i believe refs are "influenced" by hometown crowds...and that is certainly more apparent when you are visiting an away venue.

There were a couple of calls late that couldve gone our way..and probabaly would have at the Dome...(simple calls like a block that is called a charge etc)

All in all...a good game by refs. (IMO)

I was at the game as a wildcats supporter and the charging foul (which was Hodges 6th)was not there at all PC was on the move the whole time. In saying that the Wildcats received little under the basket the whole night, I think the refs did a good job on the night and the wildcats i believe don't get any hometown assistance, we have the same three maggots every week that punish us!!

Maher foul coun t is always down. When you see a box score with 3 fouls on him you know something's up.

When you see a tech against his name, you know something went amiss.

With "me" & Herka. There are always gong to be questionable calls, it's best for the team & sideliners to ride it out & stay focussed. By all accounts, Connar was restrained/gagged a couple of times by his support staff, so I gather he wasn't too happy with the officiating either.

Trivia questions of the day:

How many times has Brett Maher fouled out in his NBL career?

Out of curiosity, how many times did Andrew Gaze foul out in his NBL career?

Connor was quite entertaining, think he is on track to challenge the vein popper Gorj.

Brett is god...and therefore has never been fouled out

Herka,

Nothing says the defender has to be stationary to get an offensive foul. As long as he establishes legal guarding position initially he is allowed to move laterally and backwards. As long as the contact is on the torso the onus of the contact is then on the offensive player.

The days of a player having to stand still to get a charge went when bill russell played for the Celtics.

Yes I agree with Jack Toft. Brett has picked up a few extra fouls of late, but I cannot remember when he has been called for a tech, From what I have seen of him in the past he's too sportsman-like for that.
I was amazed when i saw he had been given one in the Perth game.

Actually, there was a post from a Perth fan on OzHo talking about Hodge's tendency to drop the shoulder into his defender. Probably a risky tactic at that stage of the game.

I don't remember Maher ever fouling out, but I've been at quite a few games where he's been T-'d up.

As for Gaze, I'll always remember Dunlap's reaction when Gaze fouled out on an offensive foul right infront of him.

Mutley I remember that! '94 finals? He tried a backturn dribble and charged over (I think) Mike McKay?

A Tech foul when he is actually speaking to one of his own team mates? Someone please refer me to the page in the rule book that covers this situation. Absurdity at its worst. If anyone believes this was a legitimate Tech, then please spill the beans on the facts of what he actually said or did. No speculation please.

Libertine I think EC is a complete tosser, but I can't get a Tech from him because I am talking to you.

Understand now how you can get a Tech for talking to your team mates.

FM, beat me to it. EC is female, but your point otherwise stands.

As I said on OzHoops, it's a little like when Phil used to use mic'ed timeouts during Fox games to give his opinion of the refereeing where it was safe from penalty. Grey area.

re the comment about Julius "dropping the shoulder", I must say i did notice that in perth...but..who didnt? It was a very tight and very physical game

There was one point where he was getting very frustrated about the closeness of his opponent (cant remember who) and he threw out a big elbow/forearm which connected with a particualarly sensitive area and left his opponenet balled up on the floor.

It was quite lucky the game did not break down at that point as there were some VERY unhappy cats players and fans.

So many arguments from people who think their point is better than anyone else's yet no one can say exactly what Brett did or said to get the Tech. Just stop your insults just for the sake of insulting and come out with the facts if you think you have more credibility than myself. What did Brett say or do? That is all the information I am seeking to determine if it was a valid Tech.

EC - There's some information about it, above 216849.

All it says is he made a remark to a team mate. It said nothing about what he said and about who. I know Ninnis can't elaborate for risk of incurring a fine. FM, why be a smart ass and give an example of how you can get a tech by talking to a team mate when you yourself have no idea of what was said. If you read my post immediately before yours, you would see that I was after facts not speculation. You proved who the tosser really is.

The ref was there and called it. Why is the onus on others to prove that it was legitimate just because you think it wasn't?

FM demonstrated what may have been a likely scenario. Maher might have called out to Hill within hearing range of the ref, "Ignore the refs, they're screwing us, just keep going." Maher can claim "I was just talking to Brad" and the ref may have a reasonable claim to call that as a tech depending on exact rules.

Reminds me of a tech my old Under 20's coach got at Hillcrest one night (a long time ago - early 90's):

Our coach asks the umpire: Can I get a tech for what I'm thinking?
Umpire: No.
Coach: Good, because I think you're a #@!& idiot.

I think EC has a valid point & it's worth trying to get an answer from someone that was at the game, who actually heard the indiscretion.
Westies have hinted that the tech was BS, but not given any detail so far.
EC isn't asking any of us homies to hypothesise, she's looking to hear from a witness to the so called offence. Not a big ask on the internet, surely.

Are you expecting Brett to pop in and post? One of the other players? Do front-row corporates in Perth read Hoops? I'm not convinced there will be a response and, in that case, perhaps the best we have to go by is the ref who called it - that's all I'm saying.

FM gave an example of how two players communicating could be deemed a discretion by a ref.

DDFan gives no credit to anonymous posters but if that version of events is accurate, I assume the ref misheard or assumed something was said. I don't believe they would invent something intentionally.

That, or the version of events passed on might be less than accurate?

What was Hodge's tech for?

Isaac:

"I assume the ref misheard or assumed something was said."

That's how I took it.

Isaac:

"I don't believe they would invent something intentionally."

Neither do I.

Isaac, in regard to Hodges tech...Again i couldnt hear what was said (i was 3rd row, but half court away)..but with Hodges there seemed to be some "agitation and gesticulating" from Julius, I think we can safely assume there was some strong language following.

Apparently what was said by Brett to Brad:

"Don't worry about it, he was calling the same shit in Adelaide."

Isaac:

"Apparently what was said by Brett to Brad:

"Don't worry about it, he was calling the same shit in Adelaide." "

Where did you clip that "apparent" "quote"?

Isaac, is there anything wrong with being curious about the circumstances leading to Brett's Tech. Considering Brett is a clean sportsmanlike player, I found it interesting to hear what he said or did that resulted in a Tech.

Also, if its accurate that Brett said "Don't worry about it, he was calling the same shit in Adelaide." to a team mate, then he was not directly talking to the ref, he was consulting with his own team mate and probably for the purpose of calming him down so his frustration would not have an adverse effect on his game. I see no reason for a Tech.

EC and that was Isaacs point to you all along which you chose to take personally.

Who are you to say what is or isn't worth a Tech. Also your basing your opinion on a probability which you've created.

I think Brett said it to Brad deliberately while Campbell was close by and was looking at Campbell when he said it to make his point to Campbell while hiding it under the guise that he was talking to Hill. If that was the situation then wouldn't you agree that the Tech foul was deserved?

The point is that neither you or I heard or saw the incident or were involved so neither you or I can fairly and accurately say if the Tech foul was deserved or not.

An experienced player like Brett would have a good idea of what constitutes a Tech and what doesn't. It doesn't seem likely he would knowingly put himself in that position. Its out of character for him to be so reckless when he is the one that brings order to the court. This has been backed up by Ninnis stating that he was going to report it to the NBL. I wasn't at the game but it sounds like many people were quite surprised by the call. I agree that a Tech foul was deserved if Brett spoke to the ref in his face.

The referees are instructed and trained to know what is and what isn't acceptable. The referee gave Maher a Tech foul because Maher crossed a line.

End of story.

"Adelaide was particularly incensed by a technical foul incurred by captain Brett Maher for a remark to a team-mate.

"We might have to take that call and show it to the NBL this week," Ninnis said.

At the risk of a league fine, the coach could comment no further but it is clear an under-current of unhappiness existed in how the match was officiated"

Because Ninnis is trained and educated as to what is or isn't a Tech foul?

Because it's not possible Scott is protecting the image of Maher, which based on your stance is obviously still strong?

What people say to the media is said for a reason.

Sorry but from the NBL website:

"The loss is devastating. There are no real words for it, it's very deflating. I'm not a big fan of the tech fouls and the two gentlemen involved will receive a talking to. It's just ill-discipline and that reflects on myself and the team. You are always going to get calls that don't go your way," Ninnis said.

I understand EC's frustration. You all keep repeating what MAY have been said, & driving it home as if it were FACT.

Not sure whether Ninnis did take it to the NBL or not but if he did, it would be to seek clarity on the situation. That is hardly saying that Ninnis is trained and educated as to what is or isn't a Tech foul. The situation has arisen in the past where a report was made to the NBL and agreed that the ref had been mistaken in his call. The refs are not perfect, its just as likely that they got it wrong as the victims of their call. It wont change the outcome of the game so for what other reason would a report be made other than just seeking clarity and reporting the incidence to the NBL so the ref can be reprimanded. Also how many times do you see it when one ref makes a call only to be overridden by another? It happened only 2 home games ago.

And neither is Brett Maher

DDFan, first I consulted tea leaves and the result was the message I have already laid out for all here. Initially, I refused to believe it myself since a Perth fan on OzHoops wasn't sure if the tech was warranted and that seemed both inline with our existing bias as 36ers fans and to contradict what the leaves were telling me! So, I cast knuckle bones in a ring of brick dust. When the message returned the same again, I shook my head - EC won't stand for it, I thought, Brett is too controlled for this sort of risk in a close game and refs often disagree on calls, there is proof of that! Then, I hypnotised a chicken in a chalk-drawn pentacle surrounded by candles and had it confusedly manipulate a handy ouija board. As the letters formed the same message for a third time, I came to accept that our champion (like others before him) is experienced, crafty and pushes the line like this from time to time.

Isaac you need to get out more if that is what you get up to in your spare time.

From previous dealings with Brett, he is normally not the one to whinge and complain to refs during a game. The emphasis here must be on the word normally.

However given a scenario where Brett believes he is getting totally screwed and the call in question was very dubious, his remarks are normally smart and direct to the point. They are never trash and they are not personal. As long as these comments stay within the lines of the court, a good ref will normally take them on the chin. It normally means you just f'ked up.

I had a CEO give me some good advice.

He said:

"Never make assumptions John, the market's saturated."

He went on to say:

"You're a magnitude smarter than the dickheads out there, they make them for free."

I'd actually called him an ignorant bastard on a previous occasion , & he still shook my hand many years later.

Gold Isaac

Hey Isaac, did you consult "Crystal", he may have a spin on it. ; )

Wow! DDfan pitches in with another zinger...idiot

Hey STAT, you do get the "Crystal" part, don't you?
There's absolutely no malace in it, & goes along with Isaac's fun post.

Isaac, I don't use astrology, numerology, tarot cards, zodiac signs or any form of spiritual beings to come to a conclusion. I use my instinct a lot and believe it or not, it has served me well. I am a firm believer that if something doesn't look right, then its not right.

No malice (mal I ce), just annoying.

Let's face it, when Mahersey gets called for the Tech, the umpiring was Sh@thouse!

Jack, pffft.

EC, I posted what I was told Maher said (by someone I have no reason not to trust and who would've easily found out). If people don't want to buy into that, so be it. The ref called it, it seems likely that it was a reasonable call, and the game's over and done with.

Ike,
my point exactly, Mahersey is one of the all time champs of the NBL. Clean, honest and with high integrity. You can't change the past.

But, when a dude like Mahersey gets called for a tech, you know that something smells in the state of Denmark

Isaac, I didn't doubt what you said was true, I doubted it was reasonable grounds for a Tech.

Jack,

what do the stats say about it?

EC, why's that? A reading of the rules? Training as a referee?