Vid Request- Miami vs Duke
 

Can someone please post the video of the foul occuring at the 2:14 mark of the 2nd half.

The foul was called a non-shooting foul but its a bucket that I'm scoring 10 times out of 10.

Curious as to others thoughts.

I trust you didn't believe Dickie V
 

I believe Dickie V said that it would have been continuation in the NBA, but not in college because he hadn't released the ball yet. I know he mis-spoke.

I doubt it.

But the only saving grace is that the player might not have been in the "upward motion" which was the philosophy for the last few years.

Peace

I would also be interested in this one since this is a topic I find interesting to get opinions on. Coaches have complained that I'm too liberal about what is a shooting foul vs "on the floor", but IMO many of my partners are the opposite.

:eek:

Their words, not mine. Hence the quotes.

Here's the play...

<iframe width="960" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rU5hvaJtsck?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Poor decision. That's in the act of shooting and continuous motion should have applied.

Check the arm contact at the 0:25 mark. I think that's what the T was calling, which would have made in a non-shooting foul. Not that I agree with it but I think that's what he was getting and he just reacted too late.

I don't agree. The official makes no movement and doesn't blow the whistle until the player has released a try for goal near the basket. There is no way that he is calling a handchecking foul that occurred 25 feet away from this point when the defender had a foot in the orange part of the U on the court.

He thought that the reach around slap on the edge of the FT lane took place before the act of shooting began. He was incorrect and just missed this call.

That is the only thing that could justify not counting the basket. But, as Nevada said, his reaction to that was really late if that is what he is calling.

Thanks for posting JMF.

I'm not understanding this one at all. The contact at 0:25 mark is minimal, I don't even know if the C can see it, and the whistle occurs well after that.

Also, I never see a fist. I just here a whistle and then see the shot being waived off.

I'm betting he doesn't like this call at all after seeing the tape.

I was watching this last night and heard Dicky V talking about it as well. I didn't go back and look, but I do have another question on this play.

Do we know what caused the T to be so far down almost as another C?

I mean its pretty obvious, Coach K was in this guy's ear and it was a 6 point game with a chance to go up 9. :eek:

Based on where the person who ended up as the C started, and the way he moved to get to C, it seems obvious that the L was on the table side at the start of the possession and rotated opposite the table at some point. Neither the C, going to be new T or the T picked it up right away.

As far as your other comment, you really think a guy assigned to work the Miami vs Duke game on national tv is going to let a coach's previous belly aching influence his decision on how he adjudicates this play? Please.

You must not be a regular.....

I would say (and doesn't mean I agree) that the official is ruling there was no upward motion prior to the illegal contact. In fact it was on the downward motion and his judgment is that upward motion constitutes the start of the shooting motion.

Hey, I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. The only other thought that came to mind was he put a whistle on the slap, realized he shouldn't have/didn't want to put a whistle on it, then thought he'd compromise by waving off the shot...all while praying it didn't go in the basket.

Whatever the reason, it didn't look good.

Bizarre.

I don't even think there's a foul....let alone before the shot.

My first reaction was that if he's calling that on the ground then he must be late on the arm bar/reach as the drive starts. Though he saw mulitplep touches maybe? Swallowed the whistle and didn't mean to?

After reviewing. Unless he saw the reach/touch as an "automatic" really not enough there IMO to impede the player so I wouldn't be calling it. Which would mean the only other potential foul is on the slap as he would appear to be in his motion to shoot. MIssed call.

Yikes. I guess this is why coaches think the player has to be in the air for it to be a shooting foul. That bucket is good all day, everyday.

The more I look at this play the worse it gets. I agree that its likely not a foul at all even though I can understand him thinking there was contact on the swipe at the ball during what was clearly the shooting motion.

But I cannot see a single reason to not score this basket. And again, unless I'm missing something he never puts his fist up either. Just a whistle and waive off.

Also for the record, phrases that IMO we as officials should NEVER use that I hear/see all too often:

On the floor/ground
Over the back
Reach
Dipped his shoulder
Was moving his feet

I'll agree with those first three but what is wrong with dipped his shoulder or moving his feet? Need some context as to when you hear them used and what you would say instead.

There is definite contact on the shot but not enough that would rise to the level of a foul. Don't see how this is a non shooting foul.

On the floor is the only acceptable phrase we can use. It conveys information that the foul was not in the act of shooting and that the foul was "on the floor" not "at the rim".

It perpetuates the myth that only an player who is in the air can be in the act of shooting.

Use "before the shot" or "before the try."

(And, I think the CCA manual for NCAAW still includes the phrase "on the floor." Maybe I'll make a mechanics suggestion for next year.)

I thought the foul was on Blue 13. What did the floor do wrong? :D

I'm really glad I swallowed my coffee before I read that . . . and now I'm gonna think about that every time I hear a ref say that . . .

The foul was "against" or "committed by" blue 13.

I personally find "against" to be ambiguous. It could mean the fouler "the foul was charged against the fouler." or the offended player "the foul was made against the offended player."

To me shooter has gathered ball and is in act of shooting. I'm sure official would like this one back

"Dipped his shoulder" implies that doing so is illegal. Its not. The displacement that can occur when an offensive player dips his shoulder is what we are calling. I hear too many refs simply saying, "he dipped his shoulder" to explain a call when there was no displacement and nothing illegal.

And I also hear officials explaining block calls by saying that the defender was still "moving his feet", which as we all know a defender is allowed to do to maintain LGP. Agree that context is important here but IMO we should get out of the habit of using these phrases at all because they perpetuate myths and unttuths about what is actually legal vs illegal.

I know of a few college and HS assingers who don't want that phrase used at all so to say that its "the only acceptable phrase we can use" is not at all accurate.

A foul does not have to be "at the rim" to be a shooting foul. All we have to say, if anything, is "no shot" or "before the shot." And when explaining to a coach you just indicate that the foul occured before the shooting motion began.

As Bob said its a phrase that, again, perpeutates myth. Just like "over the back."

It may not be completely accurate but it's meaning to officials and coaches is obvious. One means shooting foul, the other does not.

Over the back in completely wrong as usually officials that call it make an incorrect call simply because a player jumped over an opponent without making contact (NBA rule).

Just because people know, or think they know, what it means doesnt mean it should be used.

There are more accurate phrases that are acutally rules based and are just as easily, if not more easily, understood. My point is that we should use those instead.

I included it specifically for that reason -- just like "on".

If it were so obvious we wouldn't have coaches who dispute whether the player was shooting or not as much as we do. I have coaches often dispute why I'm putting a player on the line by saying "wan't he on the floor?".

I reply that he may have been on the floor but he had started the shooting motions.

Even if the offensive player dips a should and there is enough contact for a foul, it sill isn't automatically on the offensive player. The defender must be legal. If I have a defender not legal and an offensive player with a lowered shoulder, I'm calling the foul on the defense since the defender have a right to be in the spot for the shoulder to matter.

Sometimes I reply with "what else do you think he was planning on doing?"

Did you read the NFHS Preseason Guide for this year? There is an article in it condemning the use of "on the floor."
That's an official NFHS instructional document.

I don't personally use it but I get it's meaning and don't see it's harm. I also am not necessarily a huge fan of it, but from other things officials say that annoy me it's at the bottom of my list.

Over the back is a pet peeve, along with "coach he lowered his shoulder". These imply that these fouls exist in our vernacular.

I sometimes says something similar...

Coach, if you were playing and had the ball there, what would you be trying to do?