2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

Jurassic Referee

mbyron wrote
Yeah-huh. Thrash-o-matic. :eek:

"We wuz doing real good until the big boys got outa school." 😀

Judtech

justacoach wrote
Jurassic:
You imply passiveness on Howard's just 'landing' on an opponent. I get a sense that he made a mid-course maneuver to actively (and illegally) perform screening action that swayed the decision from no call to illegal screen. I think we can divine intent to screen from his blatant redirection after he released the ball. Just seems like the right call at the time.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. It is obvious that the Wisc player made an adjustment in the air for the sole purpose of impeding the progress of the Butler player. Had he not done this, it would have not been a foul.
If you watch the clip again you can see him turn in mid air eyeing up Howard. This is not exactly a common occurence but I have personal knowledge of people who do/did this. Like I said 9 times out of 10 this gets missed.

grunewar

1:13 left in the UNC/MQ Game, UNC up by 21 and with the ball coming up the court. TWEEEET! Ref elects to stop the game and bring the subs at the table in.

No complaints, no issues, no reason other than - the ref took it upon himself to get the subs in and get the players on the court for a few secs in the NCAAs.

Judtech

grunewar wrote
1:13 left in the UNC/MQ Game, UNC up by 21 and with the ball coming up the court. TWEEEET! Ref elects to stop the game and bring the subs at the table in.

No complaints, no issues, no reason other than - the ref took it upon himself to get the subs in and get the players on the court for a few secs in the NCAAs.

Roy called a TO just for Substitute purposes

grunewar

Judtech wrote
Roy called a TO just for Substitute purposes

Got it. Thanks.

But, they didn't actually take the TO right? Game just continued.

One of our Rec Leagues used to have a "Substitution TO."

Raymond

grunewar wrote
Got it. Thanks.

But, they didn't actually take the TO right? Game just continued.

One of our Rec Leagues used to have a "Substitution TO."

In NCAA you can take abbreviated time-outs. In this case it's standard for the requesting coach to signal it's a substitution time-out by giving the travelling mechanic.

BktBallRef

BadNewsRef wrote
In NCAA you can take abbreviated time-outs. In this case it's standard for the requesting coach to signal it's a substitution time-out by giving the volleyball/soccer substitution signal.

Fixed it for ya! 🙂

Raymond

Jurassic Referee wrote
1) What rule gives any opponent the right to a spot under an airborne player when that opponent did not have that spot when the player went airborne?

2) Yup, I think a player should be allowed to land if there was no one in his path when he went airborne.

3) Yup. A shooter can't legally jump into an opponent. And if a defender jumps within his vertical plane, a shooter can't move under him legally either.

4) Yup, it's a judgment call imo too.

5) But was the net effect an illegal screen? That's where the judgment lies.

As I said, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, Camron.

Which goes back to my and Snaq's question. So now a screener can go airborne into the path of a guard and thus becomes absolved for any responsibility for the contact that ensues?

APG

This was from the Arizona vs. Duke game

Foul on the defender for his initial forward movement into the offensive player? Just a foul on the follow through? Or do you have no foul? Also brought this play up since we had discussion earlier about the amount of contact we allow on dunk plays.

JRutledge

AllPurposeGamer wrote
This was from the Arizona vs. Duke game

Foul on the defender for his initial forward movement into the offensive player? Just a foul on the follow through? Or do you have no foul? Also brought this play up since we had discussion earlier about the amount of contact we allow on dunk plays.

I do not see how you call a foul on this play at all. It looked like he got the ball and almost all the contact was with the ball. Play on IMO.

Peace

APG

JRutledge wrote
I do not see how you call a foul on this play at all. It looked like he got the ball and almost all the contact was with the ball. Play on IMO.

Peace

Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

Nevadaref

Seemed in the arena that VCU benefited from a slow 5-second count in OT to score the winning basket against FSU. Opposite of TX/AZ game. Thoughts?

JRutledge

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

The contact was mostly with the ball and maybe at the end there was contact with the face. But that was a result of the overall block (which was legal). I think that would be a lame foul to call. Just like a player that knocks the ball away on a dribbler and there is some contact after the ball is loose and no one is put at a disadvantage with some contact that takes place.

Peace

Camron Rust

Jurassic Referee wrote
1) What rule gives any opponent the right to a spot under an airborne player when that opponent did not have that spot when the player went airborne?

2) Yup, I think a player should be allowed to land if there was no one in his path when he went airborne.

What if they are BOTH airborne such that no one was in their paths when they jumped and such that their paths are crossing? Which ONE has the right to land and how are you going to decide?

APG

JRutledge wrote
The contact was mostly with the ball and maybe at the end there was contact with the face. But that was a result of the overall block (which was legal). I think that would be a lame foul to call. Just like a player that knocks the ball away on a dribbler and there is some contact after the ball is loose and no one is put at a disadvantage with some contact that takes place.

Peace

I pretty much agree with your view on the play. I was surprised the official put air in the whistle on this one and I think it was exactly for the contact to the face. Oh well.

JRutledge

AllPurposeGamer wrote
I pretty much agree with your view on the play. I was surprised the official put air in the whistle on this one and I think it was exactly for the contact to the face. Oh well.

Those guys are obviously not perfect. 🙂

Peace

APG

JRutledge wrote
Those guys are obviously not perfect. 🙂

Peace

Gasp! Say it ain't so! 😉

Lcubed48

BadNewsRef wrote
This may be Chris Mooney's last weekend coaching in Richmond. Shaka's also.

It is quite possible that your observation may indeed come to pass.

JugglingReferee

Nevadaref wrote
Seemed in the arena that VCU benefited from a slow 5-second count in OT to score the winning basket against FSU. Opposite of TX/AZ game. Thoughts?

I eluded to this in the chat room by saying that the count was really "5.5".

My thoughts: I'd bet a wobbly pop that it was longer than 5.

Raymond

AllPurposeGamer wrote
Some would argue that the foul is on the follow through when the offensive player was hit in the face (not necessarily making this argument).

I have a foul for the blow to the head.

« Previous Page Next Page »