Quote:
Originally Posted by icallfouls
Your opinion is wrong. NCAAM have also been instructed heavily over the years that a player can absorb contact/protect themselves. We have also been instructed to watch for to & through contact. This is clearly one player going through another....I believe the terminology is RTFO!
The L was responsible for the secondary defender, but the C was responsible for the drive and should have stayed with the drive through the crash (as part of any crash situation - pregame). It is not over for the C just because the play was in the lane and it involved a secondary defender.
The T would have been responsible for BI/GT as part of the instruction coming down from the NBA. The T had a better look (geometry).
This is an ICNC every time.
|
I think you're misreading what Nevada's saying. He specifically stated that his opinion was what he was thinking the official judged - not that it is Nevada's opinion that it was the correct judgment by the official.
Unless you are the "Smith" referenced in the post and play. If that's the case, you have every right to assert that Nevada's opinion of what he's guessing was going through the official's mind at that point is incorrect. Otherwise, I think there's a misunderstanding happening here.