Vid Request: Texas vs Oklahoma

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm not saying this isn't a great call by the lead, but for the purpose of discussion...

Why not pass on this GT and let the trail possibly pick it up? Trail probably has a great angle on the block and maybe the ball started heading right 2-3 feet away from the rim with no chance at a make.

Just a thought, either way I think it's a good get.

Trail is nowhere in the picture. The Lead waited for the Center's whistle, which never came, so the Lead made the call late as he should.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dad

I'm not saying this isn't a great call by the lead, but for the purpose of discussion...

Why not pass on this GT and let the trail possibly pick it up? Trail probably has a great angle on the block and maybe the ball started heading right 2-3 feet away from the rim with no chance at a make.

Just a thought, either way I think it's a good get.

The play was in transition. The play is not exclusively for the T or C in transition. They often talk about the Lead calling a GT or BI if they are not settled in on the end line. Actually that has been the philosophy from the NBA who the calling official happened to be a former NBA official.

Also at issue is not just on its downward flight, but did the ball hit the backboard first. I think that is a question. Honestly, I would like an answer from the calling official what exactly was his reasoning for the call so that would tell if he felt the ball hit the backboard or not first. That is the part I was focused on mostly, but there is a case to be made this was going downward as well.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The play was in transition. The play is not exclusively for the T or C in transition. They often talk about the Lead calling a GT or BI if they are not settled in on the end line. Actually that has been the philosophy from the NBA who the calling official happened to be a former NBA official.

Also at issue is not just on its downward flight, but did the ball hit the backboard first. I think that is a question. Honestly, I would like an answer from the calling official what exactly was his reasoning for the call so that would tell if he felt the ball hit the backboard or not first. That is the part I was focused on mostly, but there is a case to be made this was going downward as well.

Peace

I thought the shot got tipped, then pinned against the backboard by the secondary defender, prior to the ball hitting the backboard.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I thought the shot got tipped, then pinned against the backboard by the secondary defender, prior to the ball hitting the backboard.

The shot did get tipped, but that does not change the status of the shot.

Peace

[griblets]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What do you got???

Anybody else have a PC foul? Defender was significantly displaced.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The shot did get tipped, but that does not change the status of the shot.

Peace

I'm aware of that, but was the ball pinned before it started on downward flight. It's close.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by griblets

Anybody else have a PC foul? Defender was significantly displaced.

No. Not sure how the defender was displaced significantly when the ball handler falls down?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What do you got???



Peace

No travel. The ball came lose as the ball contacted the floor before he fell to the floor.

The replay booth, on review, could only determine that the call stands.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm aware of that, but was the ball pinned before it started on downward flight. It's close.

No. It was not. It wan't that close.

[APG]

On the offensive foul on the drive...

I'm leaning toward a no call.The amount of contact does not match up to the reaction that the defender shows. I think the defender throws his arms in a "fool the referee" manner in order to draw a foul.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No. Not sure how the defender was displaced significantly when the ball handler falls down?

Peace

I'm with APG, I'd probably have a no call. But watch the defender's location at the time of impact and where he lands after the impact by the ball handler. The defender is displaced 3 or 4 feet. Why shouldn't this be PC?

As it relates to the defender's displacement, I don't see the relevance of the ball handler falling after he slammed into the defender's torso.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by griblets

I'm with APG, I'd probably have a no call. But watch the defender's location at the time of impact and where he lands after the impact by the ball handler. The defender is displaced 3 or 4 feet. Why shouldn't this be PC?

As it relates to the defender's displacement, I don't see the relevance of the ball handler falling after he slammed into the defender's torso.

The location of the impact means nothing to me. He stood his ground and the ball handler fell over. If he was put at a disadvantage, he would be at the other end of the lane or falling down himself.

Contact can be severe and not be a foul. I would not even come close to considering this a PC foul even if the ball handler was upright. And certainly not a high level call if made when players bounce off of each other often and no foul is called nor should be called.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

On the offensive foul on the drive...

I'm leaning toward a no call.The amount of contact does not match up to the reaction that the defender shows. I think the defender throws his arms in a "fool the referee" manner in order to draw a foul.

Originally Posted by griblets

I'm with APG, I'd probably have a no call. But watch the defender's location at the time of impact and where he lands after the impact by the ball handler. The defender is displaced 3 or 4 feet. Why shouldn't this be PC?

As it relates to the defender's displacement, I don't see the relevance of the ball handler falling after he slammed into the defender's torso.

When a defender clearly embellishes contact, it doesn't absolve the ball handler from a PC foul, but it does make it more difficult for us to determine the severity of the contact.
For me, if I can't tell if a player was knocked down or fell due to his own embellishment, I'll probably no-call it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

When a defender clearly embellishes contact, it doesn't absolve the ball handler from a PC foul, but it does make it more difficult for us to determine the severity of the contact.
For me, if I can't tell if a player was knocked down or fell due to his own embellishment, I'll probably no-call it.

Are we talking about the same play? Are we talking about the travel play or the elbow drive play?

Peace

[jeremy341a]

I've got lost on who is talking about what play.