SMU @ Cincinnati Plays

[JRutledge]

Play #1:



Play #2:



Play #3:



Play#4:



Play #5:



Peace

[OrStBballRef]

1) Easy block
2) I got nothing...looked at this several times and nothing. Well maybe something on #11. Lot of bodies moving around though so I can see why the official may have put a whistle.
3) Good call
4) I had travel. Most of the contact initiated by the offense.
5) Counted this myself and I had 5 seconds as well.

[Camron Rust]

1. Regardless of what the call should be, the big problem is the mechanics. With a play at the basket, the closest official was still above the top of the key. The new lead was behind 7 players at the time of the shot. The video didn't show enough before the transition to know what went wrong. Did he miss a rotation? Did he just react too slowly to the turnover? Did he get too low as Trail before the turnover? He also looked to be hobbled a bit in transition....was he hurt an unable to keep up?

The C's position wasn't great either but not horrible. The new trail also came in with a whistle from at least 60 ft. away....not sure that was needed given the C already had a whistle.

2. Foul, #11, over the top of the shooter, not in his own space and hits the shooter's elbow.
3. Correct...screener kept moving farther and farther out through contact.
4. Defender had LGP, contact was the responsibility of the dribbler. Good call.
5. It was even 6 or 7 by the time of the whistle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1. Regardless of what the call should be, the big problem is the mechanics. With a play at the basket, the closest official was still above the top of the key. The new lead was behind 7 players at the time of the shot. The video didn't show enough before the transition to know what went wrong. Did he miss a rotation? Did he just react too slowly to the turnover? Did he get too low as Trail before the turnover? He also looked to be hobbled a bit in transition....was he hurt an unable to keep up?

The C's position wasn't great either but not horrible. The new trail also came in with a whistle from at least 60 ft. away....not sure that was needed given the C already had a whistle.

2. Foul, #11, over the top of the shooter, not in his own space and hits the shooter's elbow.
3. Correct...screener kept moving farther and farther out through contact.
4. Defender had LGP, contact was the responsibility of the dribbler. Good call.
5. It was even 6 or 7 by the time of the whistle.

My thoughts exactly. I thought it (#1) was the right call, with the defender throwing a shoulder to the side to catch the shooter.

All the calls were correct, IMO, but I still can't see why the T came flying in with his fist up. It's an odd play for three whistles.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef

1) Easy block
2) I got nothing...looked at this several times and nothing. Well maybe something on #11. Lot of bodies moving around though so I can see why the official may have put a whistle.

1. I did not personally like this call. I do not know what the defensive player did wrong.

2. He got #11 for likely not be vertical and doing the "my hands were up" move after being in the cylinder of the offensive player. I think that was a good call.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1. I did not personally like this call. I do not know what the defensive player did wrong.

I think this one was really close. At first, I though as you did. But, after watching it again, did the defender ever actually have LGP? I'm not sure he ever got 2 feet down while in the path of the shooter. I think he was still moving into the path at the time of contact and hadn't got that 2nd foot down to establish LGP.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think this one was really close. At first, I though as you did. But, after watching it again, did the defender ever actually have LGP? I'm not sure he ever got 2 feet down while in the path of the shooter. I think he was still moving into the path at the time of contact and hadn't got that 2nd foot down to establish LGP.

I think there is not question that he had LGP. It only takes a moment and he had it longer than just a moment IMO. If the ball handler was airborne I would agree that this is a block, but the ball handler made contact while on the floor. I think this is another case of just penalizing the defense when contact occurs. I would have called this a PC foul all day based on the information I have seen. Maybe from his angle I could have considered something else, but I do not know what that would have been at this point. He did not move forward, he moved sideways. And if there is any doubt, the defense gets the doubt from my point of view.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1. I did not personally like this call. I do not know what the defensive player did wrong.

I'm with you. I'm not sure what he did wrong, either. Not that I would solely call a PC based on the defender taking the contact from the BH/D in the middle of the chest but it's kind of hard not to have obtained LGP when a player takes the contact in the middle of the chest.

[BryanV21]

1. The defender illegally moved sideways into the dribbler who was trying to go around him.
2. The defender clearly jumped out of his verticality and made body-to-body contact with the shooter.
3. It looks like the screener actually pushes the defender from behind, meaning it should have been a pushing foul. If you pass on that, then I'm not 100% sold on the illegal screen call.
4. The defender did nothing wrong here.
5. While it's rare to see this called, I believe it was right.

[Mr.C]

1. Real speed, tough. Slo mo block
2. Defensive hands over shooter and make contact
3. Screener continued to move out and made contact
4. All on dribbler
5. At least 6, good call

[jpgc99]

All good calls. Thanks - as always - for posting the plays.

What does this mean:

Originally Posted by BryanV21

3. It looks like the screener actually pushes the defender from behind, meaning it should have been a pushing foul. If you pass on that, then I'm not 100% sold on the illegal screen call.

??

I've got a clear illegal screen on this and a correct call.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

??

I've got a clear illegal screen on this and a correct call.

Okay.

If you want more of an explanation from me, fine...

The defender that ends up being screened looks to be displaced (aka "pushed") before the dribbler even tries going around the screen. Now, yes... looking at it again the push may have happened during the screen itself, thus making it an illegal screen. However, I could see a pushing foul being called before the illegal screen even happens.

[jpgc99]

I'm the one that brought up the question in the first place, and it was a sincere question.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

3. It looks like the screener actually pushes the defender from behind, meaning it should have been a pushing foul. If you pass on that, then I'm not 100% sold on the illegal screen call.

The part above in bold is what was concerning to me. The statement implies that an illegal screen can only be a blocking foul. As we have explained, an illegal screen can be a block, a hold, a push, a chuck, etc.

The action in play 3 is an illegal screen, and it is an illegal screen because of the push.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

I'm the one that brought up the question in the first place, and it was a sincere question.



The part above in bold is what was concerning to me. The statement implies that an illegal screen can only be a blocking foul. As we have explained, an illegal screen can be a block, a hold, a push, a chuck, etc.

The action in play 3 is an illegal screen, and it is an illegal screen because of the push.

I had a pushing foul. IMO, it didn't matter what the dribbler did, where he was, etc. The offensive player displaced the defender.

You say that push and the screening action occurred at the same time, thus an illegal screen. I didn't see it like that the first time, but upon further viewing, like I said, I'm good with that.

I had no problem with that question, just the subsequent responses telling me what I said is the same thing. It's not... There can be a push separate from an illegal screen.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I had a pushing foul. IMO, it didn't matter what the dribbler did, where he was, etc. The offensive player displaced the defender.

You say that push and the screening action occurred at the same time, thus an illegal screen. I didn't see it like that the first time, but upon further viewing, like I said, I'm good with that.

I had no problem with that question, just the subsequent responses telling me what I said is the same thing. It's not... There can be a push separate from an illegal screen.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Which goes back to my question, which signal would you give to the table regardless if it were a screen or not? You were the one telling us it was wrong to call an illegal screen a push.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk