View Single Post
  #135 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 30, 2009, 05:53pm
walter walter is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 306
Let's try and think of this from the lead's angle. He was no doubt doubling the sideline on the play as a lot of supervisors want you to do (otherwise why would he be looking there and that is another discussion). He sees a Kansas player break towards the ball. He sees #2's leg extend into the path of the runner. He sees the runner's feet and sees one foot move unnaturally into the other and then the player ens up on the floor. I agree he went a long way to get the call. However, as I said earlier, there was a whole lot of action moving toward the trail.

Also, as we all know but few like to admit, a lot of officials peek and that is not always bad. In this situation, however, he may have been looking up the line. A very good friend of mine who got on staff this year in the Big East told me today if there was nothing going on on the paint, he's been told the lead better be helping from the backside on out of bounds plays from the sideline. My friend also said while he personally may have laid off the call, he can absolutely justify the lead going and getting it because it was an out of bounds play on the sideline with a lot of stuff going on and players leaving lead's area toward the trail's area. He told me it has been made clear to him the lead and the C have to be looking to help until the ball is established inbounds. On this play, it wasn't in yet and from the lead's view, I bet it sure looked like #2 tripped the KU player. I'm sure someone will chime in with if you only think, don't put air in the whistle but all I ask is try to visualize the play from lead's angle.
Reply With Quote