Federal Hocking vs Berlin Hiland - 6PM

[Raider6309]

Berlin Hiland 55
Federal Hocking 51
Final

[buckcc]

This is a very young HILAND team and just a average Hiland team by the Hawks standards, but we will take it and move on to the regional finials Hiland 55-51, Hiland defense did a great job on Cottrell, held him scoreless in the second half

[buckcc]

It will be replayed on WKLM Facebook live, a little later this evening

[VetteMan]

Congrats to Federal Hocking on an outstanding season.

[Sportsfan01]

The was a great game! Back and forth the whole time. I think the largest lead was Federal Hocking by 7. In my opinion when Hiland got up by two possessions in the 4th quarter Fed Hock wasted too many possessions taking long and/or contested 3s trying to get it back all at once. But a great game. Hiland is going to have to get better at handling the press the last two games the press has given them fits.

[jazzfingers888]

This is a very young HILAND team and just a average Hiland team by the Hawks standards, but we will take it and move on to the regional finials Hiland 55-51, Hiland defense did a great job on Cottrell, held him scoreless in the second half

I think you’re giving this Hawks team too much credit Bucky. I would say sub par or mediocre Hawks team instead. So many great seasons since Perry started it all in the 80s. But I agree with you told me… they were lucky to win a district and now be playing in the regional finals.

[buckcc]

I guess that's your going to get when you have a freshman at point guard , I guess we have to take our ups and downs with him right now, but I think down road he's going to be a good one

[HHS]

Sorry I steered this thread in the wrong direction initially. It wasn’t meant as a slander or dig at SE Ohio- the convo isn’t my fave place to watch a game, that’s all. The drive wasn’t too bad tonight… just home- the parking was actually ok, Federal Hocking fans were tremendous and provided a good atmosphere and even Lou didn’t annoy me much with his third ring from Saturn calls.

One thing I do know quite a bit about that people have speculated on since my original post… implying that Hiland or any east district team has any say in what regional they are sent to is just flat out wrong. Hiland was in the southeast regional for years in the 80s/90s. Then in the northeast in the late 90s and early 2000s and now back in the southeast for the last decade or so? This has always been true for East District teams in all sports not just basketball. for example, in soccer this fall East district schools were sent to the southeast, the central and the northeast. Teams just go where the OHSAA sends them. No say in the matter.

The SE has generally been good for the hawks in recent years, but the games have mostly all been close and hard fought. Would it have been harder in the NE- I can’t say for sure, but the crazy dominance of Richmond Heights the last few years would be a problem. Obviously Hiland couldn’t compete with them last year when they saw them in Dayton. To say though that Hiland couldn’t compete there as a few people did and wanted to get put in the SE is silly. The Hawks made it to state playing in the NE at least 6 times that I can think of off the top of my head. The team playing Richmond Hts on Friday and likely getting killed by them is Dalton who Hiland beat early in the season (admittedly Dalton had a key player out).

Sorry again for getting people fired up. Was just sharing my opinion- lots of people certainly disagreed with it and they have every right to disagree. It was an opinion, that’s all. I’ll be back in Athens on Friday night hoping for another hawk win just like I have all the other years whether Athens or Canton.

[Lets Go Big Moe!]

Any chance that Federal has a few kids that could play football at Moeller?

[Tomcat Queen]

Any chance that Federal has a few kids that could play football at Moeller?

No. Their basketball coach doesn’t let them play football.

[Eagle Pappaw]

I hear that Coach Welch has been inviting Fed kids who want to play football to come on down to Belpre

[eagle25]

Any chance that Federal has a few kids that could play football at Moeller?

No. Their basketball coach doesn’t let them play football.

Hmmm… Must either be a Howdy desciple or have ties to Racine. They are masters of that school of thought.

[IVCguy]

This is a very young HILAND team and just a average Hiland team by the Hawks standards, but we will take it and move on to the regional finials Hiland 55-51, Hiland defense did a great job on Cottrell, held him scoreless in the second half

I think you’re giving this Hawks team too much credit Bucky. I would say sub par or mediocre Hawks team instead. So many great seasons since Perry started it all in the 80s. But I agree with you told me… they were lucky to win a district and now be playing in the regional finals.

https://news.yahoo.com/wasnt-pretty-hil ... 10023.html

[Buckeyes1993]

Any chance that Federal has a few kids that could play football at Moeller?

No. Their basketball coach doesn’t let them play football.

Hmmm… Must either be a Howdy desciple or have ties to Racine. They are masters of that school of thought.

Actually this is false, as someone who is associated with the program the head basketball coach and assistants at Federal Hocking encourage kids to play other sports especially if its not basketball season. Of course no one asks the coaches that, they just want to point fingers and put the blame on others when kids don't want to play.

[Tomcat Queen]

No. Their basketball coach doesn’t let them play football.

Hmmm… Must either be a Howdy desciple or have ties to Racine. They are masters of that school of thought.

Actually this is false, as someone who is associated with the program the head basketball coach and assistants at Federal Hocking encourage kids to play other sports especially if its not basketball season. Of course no one asks the coaches that, they just want to point fingers and put the blame on others when kids don't want to play.

Okay, I guess the kids and parents are all just lying about that part.

[Donnie Hagglethorpe]

No. Their basketball coach doesn’t let them play football.

Hmmm… Must either be a Howdy desciple or have ties to Racine. They are masters of that school of thought.

Actually this is false, as someone who is associated with the program the head basketball coach and assistants at Federal Hocking encourage kids to play other sports especially if its not basketball season. Of course no one asks the coaches that, they just want to point fingers and put the blame on others when kids don't want to play.

Hey everyone ! feds basketball coach made an account to cover his arse!

Nice try coach

[IVCguy]

Not surprised by your response. I’ve never heard of anyone who’s team won a game agree that the refs were the reason or a reason why they won.

Well, I'm a former whiner when it comes to officiating. You might be interested to know what caused the "former" to occur.

In 2010 I'm sitting at halfcourt of the Schott a few rows up watching the Hiland girls play Harvest Prep for a state championship. Hiland is down 2 with about 30 sec left and needed the ball back. HP takes the ball out of bounds, the dribbler comes tearing up the near sideline. Our PG sets up at the halfcourt line perfectly still, and, bam, the HP player barreled right over her. It was called a block - which I immediately deemed the worst call in the history of bad calls. After all, it happened right in front of me. HP hits 2 FTs and that was the ballgame.

I went home and watched the game again. The TV camera was shooting straight up the sideline, which was also the angle the ref had following the play. What it showed was our PG leaning left to create the contact. The "worst call in the history of bad calls" was actually a correct call. The difference was the perspective I had did not allow me to understand the reality of what had happened.

The truth is that fans can see things refs can't see and refs see a whole lot of things that fans can't see. Perspective and angle matters. Furthermore, refs don't care who wins or loses. Fans are emotionally invested and that emotion can distort reality.

But the biggest truth for me to accept was that our players lost that game by not executing in the last minutes. They turned the ball over, took bad shots, didn't box out and get rebounds, etc. They uncharacteristically panicked. That's why they lost the game.

So, in fact, my take on this comes precisely because my team lost - and I realized that my mind and eyes had lied to me and that the real responsibility for the loss lay with the team I supported.

If tonight Federal Hocking wins a close game and a questionable call or two occurs late, I will tell you that officiating did not decide the game because I'm convinced it never does. It will be because of what the FH and Hiland players and coaches did or did not do over the course of the entire game.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You have whatever view you want. I am saying that I enjoy games a ton more since I put officiating in the perspective I have explained. I recommend it.

Nice story. Glad for you that you’ve been resurrected. Two points I disagree with you on. First, some refs do care who wins the game. In fact truth be known it’s probably many. Not to say they all are affected by that as far as how they call the game. But they do care for various reasons. Secondly, the calls the refs make can and many times do help determine the outcome of a game, just like a good or bad play or decision by a coach or player does. I don’t know of a Bengals fan who won’t name two or three calls by the refs that cost them the game against KC in the AFC championship. My opinion is the players, coaches and refs all play a role in determining the outcome of the game. Other than that, good post.

Obviously, a bad call or two, or certainly a bunch of them, especially late, can affect the game. But I would maintain they don't determine the outcome. It's a simple math thing. There are 10 players on the court, 2 coaches, and 3 refs. The refs in a typical game, let's pick a big number, make 75 affirmative calls (fouls, travelling, OOB, etc.) and maybe another number in that range where they decide to not make a call. So, the officials make 150 calls/non-calls a game that have some impact on the game. But the 10 players are constantly doing things, some good and some not good, over the course of 32 minutes that equate to thousands of decisions. Coaches make hundreds of decisions during a game: who plays, what combinations play, when to substitute and with who, what defenses, what offensive sets, timeouts, speed up, slow down, press, trap, etc. So, I would argue that the math is x thousands of decisions that impact the game coming from the coaches and players vs. 150ish from the refs. In that context, the officiating may help one team some, or hurt them some, but the teams themselves have plenty of opportunities to take the officials completely out of the realm of possibility of determining the game with a bad call by executing and playing well.

Refs are human, so they are certainly capable of caring who wins, and I'm sure that has happened - but 3 of them colluding to sabotage a high school game that really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things? I don't believe that happens. Trashing their integrity by violating ethics rules to make sure one team wins? No way. I do think that they like some coaches and despise others, and that does affect how tolerant they are of disagreement coming from the bench. But I would view that as more of a coach being a jerk problem more than a ref bias problem. FWIW

[SG REBEL]

Well, I'm a former whiner when it comes to officiating. You might be interested to know what caused the "former" to occur.

In 2010 I'm sitting at halfcourt of the Schott a few rows up watching the Hiland girls play Harvest Prep for a state championship. Hiland is down 2 with about 30 sec left and needed the ball back. HP takes the ball out of bounds, the dribbler comes tearing up the near sideline. Our PG sets up at the halfcourt line perfectly still, and, bam, the HP player barreled right over her. It was called a block - which I immediately deemed the worst call in the history of bad calls. After all, it happened right in front of me. HP hits 2 FTs and that was the ballgame.

I went home and watched the game again. The TV camera was shooting straight up the sideline, which was also the angle the ref had following the play. What it showed was our PG leaning left to create the contact. The "worst call in the history of bad calls" was actually a correct call. The difference was the perspective I had did not allow me to understand the reality of what had happened.

The truth is that fans can see things refs can't see and refs see a whole lot of things that fans can't see. Perspective and angle matters. Furthermore, refs don't care who wins or loses. Fans are emotionally invested and that emotion can distort reality.

But the biggest truth for me to accept was that our players lost that game by not executing in the last minutes. They turned the ball over, took bad shots, didn't box out and get rebounds, etc. They uncharacteristically panicked. That's why they lost the game.

So, in fact, my take on this comes precisely because my team lost - and I realized that my mind and eyes had lied to me and that the real responsibility for the loss lay with the team I supported.

If tonight Federal Hocking wins a close game and a questionable call or two occurs late, I will tell you that officiating did not decide the game because I'm convinced it never does. It will be because of what the FH and Hiland players and coaches did or did not do over the course of the entire game.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You have whatever view you want. I am saying that I enjoy games a ton more since I put officiating in the perspective I have explained. I recommend it.

Nice story. Glad for you that you’ve been resurrected. Two points I disagree with you on. First, some refs do care who wins the game. In fact truth be known it’s probably many. Not to say they all are affected by that as far as how they call the game. But they do care for various reasons. Secondly, the calls the refs make can and many times do help determine the outcome of a game, just like a good or bad play or decision by a coach or player does. I don’t know of a Bengals fan who won’t name two or three calls by the refs that cost them the game against KC in the AFC championship. My opinion is the players, coaches and refs all play a role in determining the outcome of the game. Other than that, good post.

Obviously, a bad call or two, or certainly a bunch of them, especially late, can affect the game. But I would maintain they don't determine the outcome. It's a simple math thing. There are 10 players on the court, 2 coaches, and 3 refs. The refs in a typical game, let's pick a big number, make 75 affirmative calls (fouls, travelling, OOB, etc.) and maybe another number in that range where they decide to not make a call. So, the officials make 150 calls/non-calls a game that have some impact on the game. But the 10 players are constantly doing things, some good and some not good, over the course of 32 minutes that equate to thousands of decisions. Coaches make hundreds of decisions during a game: who plays, what combinations play, when to substitute and with who, what defenses, what offensive sets, timeouts, speed up, slow down, press, trap, etc. So, I would argue that the math is x thousands of decisions that impact the game coming from the coaches and players vs. 150ish from the refs. In that context, the officiating may help one team some, or hurt them some, but the teams themselves have plenty of opportunities to take the officials completely out of the realm of possibility of determining the game with a bad call by executing and playing well.

Refs are human, so they are certainly capable of caring who wins, and I'm sure that has happened - but 3 of them colluding to sabotage a high school game that really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things? I don't believe that happens. Trashing their integrity by violating ethics rules to make sure one team wins? No way. I do think that they like some coaches and despise others, and that does affect how tolerant they are of disagreement coming from the bench. But I would view that as more of a coach being a jerk problem more than a ref bias problem. FWIW

Blame the refs. SAD. Take responsibility. Move on. Pick up NEXT YEAR. VERY SAD. BOO HOO

[Gray Cat]

Nice story. Glad for you that you’ve been resurrected. Two points I disagree with you on. First, some refs do care who wins the game. In fact truth be known it’s probably many. Not to say they all are affected by that as far as how they call the game. But they do care for various reasons. Secondly, the calls the refs make can and many times do help determine the outcome of a game, just like a good or bad play or decision by a coach or player does. I don’t know of a Bengals fan who won’t name two or three calls by the refs that cost them the game against KC in the AFC championship. My opinion is the players, coaches and refs all play a role in determining the outcome of the game. Other than that, good post.

Obviously, a bad call or two, or certainly a bunch of them, especially late, can affect the game. But I would maintain they don't determine the outcome. It's a simple math thing. There are 10 players on the court, 2 coaches, and 3 refs. The refs in a typical game, let's pick a big number, make 75 affirmative calls (fouls, travelling, OOB, etc.) and maybe another number in that range where they decide to not make a call. So, the officials make 150 calls/non-calls a game that have some impact on the game. But the 10 players are constantly doing things, some good and some not good, over the course of 32 minutes that equate to thousands of decisions. Coaches make hundreds of decisions during a game: who plays, what combinations play, when to substitute and with who, what defenses, what offensive sets, timeouts, speed up, slow down, press, trap, etc. So, I would argue that the math is x thousands of decisions that impact the game coming from the coaches and players vs. 150ish from the refs. In that context, the officiating may help one team some, or hurt them some, but the teams themselves have plenty of opportunities to take the officials completely out of the realm of possibility of determining the game with a bad call by executing and playing well.

Refs are human, so they are certainly capable of caring who wins, and I'm sure that has happened - but 3 of them colluding to sabotage a high school game that really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things? I don't believe that happens. Trashing their integrity by violating ethics rules to make sure one team wins? No way. I do think that they like some coaches and despise others, and that does affect how tolerant they are of disagreement coming from the bench. But I would view that as more of a coach being a jerk problem more than a ref bias problem. FWIW

Blame the refs. SAD. Take responsibility. Move on. Pick up NEXT YEAR. VERY SAD. BOO HOO

So you blaming the players? No one blamed anyone. Just saying all three, coaches, players and refs, have an affect on the outcome of the game.

[Gray Cat]

Well, I'm a former whiner when it comes to officiating. You might be interested to know what caused the "former" to occur.

In 2010 I'm sitting at halfcourt of the Schott a few rows up watching the Hiland girls play Harvest Prep for a state championship. Hiland is down 2 with about 30 sec left and needed the ball back. HP takes the ball out of bounds, the dribbler comes tearing up the near sideline. Our PG sets up at the halfcourt line perfectly still, and, bam, the HP player barreled right over her. It was called a block - which I immediately deemed the worst call in the history of bad calls. After all, it happened right in front of me. HP hits 2 FTs and that was the ballgame.

I went home and watched the game again. The TV camera was shooting straight up the sideline, which was also the angle the ref had following the play. What it showed was our PG leaning left to create the contact. The "worst call in the history of bad calls" was actually a correct call. The difference was the perspective I had did not allow me to understand the reality of what had happened.

The truth is that fans can see things refs can't see and refs see a whole lot of things that fans can't see. Perspective and angle matters. Furthermore, refs don't care who wins or loses. Fans are emotionally invested and that emotion can distort reality.

But the biggest truth for me to accept was that our players lost that game by not executing in the last minutes. They turned the ball over, took bad shots, didn't box out and get rebounds, etc. They uncharacteristically panicked. That's why they lost the game.

So, in fact, my take on this comes precisely because my team lost - and I realized that my mind and eyes had lied to me and that the real responsibility for the loss lay with the team I supported.

If tonight Federal Hocking wins a close game and a questionable call or two occurs late, I will tell you that officiating did not decide the game because I'm convinced it never does. It will be because of what the FH and Hiland players and coaches did or did not do over the course of the entire game.

I'm not saying you're wrong. You have whatever view you want. I am saying that I enjoy games a ton more since I put officiating in the perspective I have explained. I recommend it.

Nice story. Glad for you that you’ve been resurrected. Two points I disagree with you on. First, some refs do care who wins the game. In fact truth be known it’s probably many. Not to say they all are affected by that as far as how they call the game. But they do care for various reasons. Secondly, the calls the refs make can and many times do help determine the outcome of a game, just like a good or bad play or decision by a coach or player does. I don’t know of a Bengals fan who won’t name two or three calls by the refs that cost them the game against KC in the AFC championship. My opinion is the players, coaches and refs all play a role in determining the outcome of the game. Other than that, good post.

Obviously, a bad call or two, or certainly a bunch of them, especially late, can affect the game. But I would maintain they don't determine the outcome. It's a simple math thing. There are 10 players on the court, 2 coaches, and 3 refs. The refs in a typical game, let's pick a big number, make 75 affirmative calls (fouls, travelling, OOB, etc.) and maybe another number in that range where they decide to not make a call. So, the officials make 150 calls/non-calls a game that have some impact on the game. But the 10 players are constantly doing things, some good and some not good, over the course of 32 minutes that equate to thousands of decisions. Coaches make hundreds of decisions during a game: who plays, what combinations play, when to substitute and with who, what defenses, what offensive sets, timeouts, speed up, slow down, press, trap, etc. So, I would argue that the math is x thousands of decisions that impact the game coming from the coaches and players vs. 150ish from the refs. In that context, the officiating may help one team some, or hurt them some, but the teams themselves have plenty of opportunities to take the officials completely out of the realm of possibility of determining the game with a bad call by executing and playing well.

Refs are human, so they are certainly capable of caring who wins, and I'm sure that has happened - but 3 of them colluding to sabotage a high school game that really doesn't matter in the big scheme of things? I don't believe that happens. Trashing their integrity by violating ethics rules to make sure one team wins? No way. I do think that they like some coaches and despise others, and that does affect how tolerant they are of disagreement coming from the bench. But I would view that as more of a coach being a jerk problem more than a ref bias problem. FWIW

Once again I have to disagree with you. I’m not going to write a book but I will offer this again, that I believe all three entities have an impact on the outcome of a game. The amount of impact by any of the three can outweigh the other two in a given game. So let’s say that a team makes a plethora of mistakes but makes up for them and has a one point lead with one second left when an opposing player throws up a prayer that misses but the ref makes a phantom foul call. The player makes both free throws to win the game. The fact that the losing team made a huge amount of mistakes doesn’t lessen the impact of the bad call made by the ref. Furthermore, you can’t without a doubt say that any of those mistakes by the team determined the outcome of the game. But you can say the bad call by the ref did. It’s good to agree to disagree with you.