Vid Request: Texas vs Oklahoma

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is an excellent call. The ball is on the way down.
The Lead seems to have the best look too.

I agree the ball was on the way down.

White 11 may have gotten a piece of the ball on the initial shot block attempt. Does that change anything?

Originally Posted by bas2456

I agree the ball was on the way down.

White 11 may have gotten a piece of the ball on the initial shot block attempt. Does that change anything?

No, it is still considered a try until the ball hits the floor or it is obvious that the ball will miss.

Great call, ball was on the way down.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I agree the ball was on the way down.

White 11 may have gotten a piece of the ball on the initial shot block attempt. Does that change anything?

I thought that as well. The shot was blocked for sure.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I agree the ball was on the way down.

White 11 may have gotten a piece of the ball on the initial shot block attempt. Does that change anything?

The defender definitely hit the ball on the release. That doesn't make the try automatically over. The official would need to deem that the ball no longer has a chance to go into the basket. If that is the case, then the try would be over and any subsequent touch could not be GT, but could be BI.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is an excellent call. The ball is on the way down.
The Lead seems to have the best look too.

Originally Posted by bas2456

I agree the ball was on the way down.

White 11 may have gotten a piece of the ball on the initial shot block attempt. Does that change anything?

Agree. Good call....clearly on the way down. And the lead is fine to call that in transition.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is an excellent call. The ball is on the way down.
The Lead seems to have the best look too.

That is goaltending. I thought so at real speed.

That said, that was an amazing block.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It was close for sure. I also have no problem with the Lead calling this in transition the only time they should make this call. But it was close.

Peace

I thought block was good watching the initial replay but I was wrong.

Looks like I'm the only one who had a bad call from the L tonight. Official was well ahead of the baseline and had a good look.

[Rich]

If I'm going to call that extended forearm against the defense (one of the automatics) then I'm going to call the PC foul when the ball handler does it, too.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Rich

If I'm going to call that extended forearm against the defense (one of the automatics) then I'm going to call the PC foul when the ball handler does it, too.

100% agree on the extended forearm.

That's why I'm wondering why nobody else has a PC foul on the travel play. A1 bangs into the torso of B1, who had LGP, and was displaced several feet. If B1 had created that kind of contact on A1, I think we all would agree it's a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by griblets

100% agree on the extended forearm.

That's why I'm wondering why nobody else has a PC foul on the travel play. A1 bangs into the torso of B1, who had LGP, and was displaced several feet. If B1 had created that kind of contact on A1, I think we all would agree it's a foul.

Judgement. In this case, while there might be some displacement, the contact did not prevent B1 from performing any defensive movements. In fact, it simply knocked A1 to the floor.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by griblets

100% agree on the extended forearm.

That's why I'm wondering why nobody else has a PC foul on the travel play. A1 bangs into the torso of B1, who had LGP, and was displaced several feet. If B1 had created that kind of contact on A1, I think we all would agree it's a foul.

Banging into the torso isn't an automatic.

I figure if it's an automatic foul on B, why should A be able to do it?

[griblets]

Originally Posted by Rich

I figure if it's an automatic foul on B, why should A be able to do it?

That's the point I'm making. I'm not saying I would have called it, but I was surprised that nobody was discussing that part of the play.

(Talking about the travel video)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by griblets

That's the point I'm making. I'm not saying I would have called it, but I was surprised that nobody was discussing that part of the play.

(Talking about the travel video)

Nothing in that video is an automatic.

And I agree with some others here. One video per thread is what's going to be considered best practices going forward.

Edited to say: This has revealed a schism between the moderators, so we'll be discussing it further. In the meantime, please clearly mention which play you're talking about.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by griblets

100% agree on the extended forearm.

That's why I'm wondering why nobody else has a PC foul on the travel play. A1 bangs into the torso of B1, who had LGP, and was displaced several feet. If B1 had created that kind of contact on A1, I think we all would agree it's a foul.

Again, because that is acceptable contact. The ball handler falls, so not sure what disadvantage he is put at when the guy that comes at him falls.

And I think your "several feet" is an exaggeration. He moves, but not as much as the ball handler.

This is why you see the play start, develop and finish. If you call a play in the start process, you call a foul that obviously did not need to be called. If the ball handler does not drop the ball, we have a travel for sure.

Again, all contact is not a foul. Players are not going to be stationary when contacted. Obviously a guy that did some weights stood his ground and was still in position to keep his position and helped cause the ball handler to fall.

Peace