Ff1 uva/gt
 

About 11:00 in the second half. Be prepared for Jay Bilas's ranting, JRut. :D

Give me until tonight and I will have this for you.

Peace

Here is the video.
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sdmOjtEGfYQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Well at least if Bilas is going to rant, he might as well be right about it.

Well, he wasn't that wrong. The elbow only contacted the opponents bicep and was nowhere near being above his shoulders. The player who the elbow hit did flop...he acted like it hit him in the face and it didn't.

As much as Bilas may be a blowhard who doesn't know rule application to save his life, even they are right now and then.

Bilas: "No contact whatsoever" "Gigantic failure by the officials"

You guys think he's COMPLETELY right?

He's right in that there was no contact to warrant a FF1 and the offensive player flopped.

No....

He was right that it shouldn't have been an F1. The official, when explaining the call to the table crew even gestured that it hit the opponent under the chin when it clearly didn't.

He snaps his head back on his own to avoid getting hit by the elbow(flop) but I think he gets hip checked and arm shoved pretty well by 0, a bigger player. So no F1 maybe, but def imo a common foul, but maybe that's what Jay's rant is more about I guess is what you guys are saying? I sure don't agree with him that a T could be called on the "flopper"

Sorry, it was an "egregious" failure, rather than a gigantic one;)

I can understand getting this incorrect during live play, but not after having the opportunity to review the action on the monitor.

By rule, in NFHS, it could happen. Not sure if it is NCAA as well. I've never called it but I believe a saw some posts here in the past that others have.

Do we know what camera angles they had to look at? If they did not see the baseline camera angle, then it absolutely does look like the elbow caught the UVA player under the chin. That baseline camera angle is the only one that shows that it was a fantastic acting job.

This is not totally reliable, but the broadcaster said they saw all the same replays that they showed on TV. Now whether they had actually seen them that is another story. But if that is the case, it was a bad miss on replay.

Peace

Yeah, I hear that from the talking heads all the time...but judging by the reactions of the man and lady right behind the table, I don't think they saw that baseline camera shot. Not much to go by, but watch the lady and her reaction...I don't think the crew saw all the same angles.

Jay Bilas just confirmed during the ND-NC game that the game officials did not get a look at the same video replays the broadcasters did.

He also bemoaned a charge call earlier in the UNC-ND game "that's not a charge, he turned away, you can't do that". When he first started broadcasting a lot of games I was hopeful. Now I'm just disappointed.

Can only call it if is seen during a monitor review.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

In the ODU Middle Tennessee State game a similar situation. The score was 21 to 20 at the time they went to the monitor but I don't know the time on a clock. I think they really could have called a technical for faking being fouled.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Vid request: FS1 ODU/MTSU 3:57 of 1st Half
 

It starts about the 3:57 mark of the 1st half, and the game is on FS1.

Thanks.

I have once, but in an elementary level YMCA game.

After a warning, and the flop was "egregious".

Meanie. Picking on elem school kids. [emoji3]

I knew it was someone here but couldn't recall who and that it was just like you described above

Talked with the "C" who called it and is a very good friend of mine. They did not see the baseline angle and said from the angles they had to review at the monitor, it was a no brainer that he got hit in the chin with the elbow. Having seen the baseline angle afterward, still had a foul but would not have been FF1. Just letting you know.

Bumping to see if we can still get this one. 3:57 mark of the 1st half on FS1.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

I worked a game where one was called but it was a mess.

PLayer A was leaning away from contact and bailing out early all night. No idea how much trying to fake being fouled and how much was him just being soft. My partner warned him and then warned the coach.

2nd half player is defending the ball when he gets blown by on a ripthrough and go. Instead of sliding gets blown up and hits the ground like he's been hit by a shotgun blast. My partner immediately blows the play dead and calls a T for flopping. Kid gets up spits blood on my partners shoe, causes a scene and gets tossed.

UGLY.

Downgrade to no call?
 

Just curious if anyone downgrades this play to a no call and go with POI given you saw the angles we did. I know that we can do this in NCAAW, but not sure if Men can do it. To me it looks like player going in with hands extended to "set up" his fool the referee play. I'd take the foul away and that player will have a harder time getting a foul call the rest of the night because I will have to evaluate if he is trying to fool me again.

Sounds like your partner blew it. He should stop penalizing players for doing what they're legally permitted to do. That mentality led him into a bad call.

Excellent info and a problem with the replay system that the NCAA/conference needs to fix.
I understand how plays can look very different from various angles. I believe that one of the issues here was that the calling official had a deceptive angle and came out of his primary for what he believed to be a non-basketball play that the crew had to get. Unfortunately, the studies which show that we are wrong about 70% of the time when we call in our secondary areas proved true here and the angle of view got your friend into trouble.

Thanks walt. That is really awesome insight. Its amazing they can use a tool and then are not given all the angles to get the call right...

I really doubt that studies show that the calls in a secondary are wrong 70% of the time. I suspect that is a made-up number more than an actual result of a study. Sure, they may be less accurate than in the primary, but I really doubt it drops that much on the kinds of plays people go get.

This call, specifically, wasn't wrong. The calling official didn't call an FF1 live. he called a personal foul...and it was. They went to video, which should be even better than a primary call, and then got it wrong because they didn't have the right view.

I've heard that calling outside of your primary is only 70% accurate, not 70% wrong.

I could believe that. Your accuracy may drop, but it doesn't disappear. If it did, there would be little value in reviewing any video that didn't include 3-4 angles. Either way, I'm guessing the number is just made up or generated after someone viewed a relatively small set of plays and not a large comprehensive study. Furthermore, depending on the point you want to prove, a lot of judgement calls could be classified either way (as correct or incorrect), significantly skewing the results.


The question to ask then, regarding situations outside of your primary, would be whether it is better to call something or not call something. If you make the all, you'd be right 70% of the time and be wrong 30%. But, to not make that call you'd be wrong 70% of the time but be right 30% of the time. If officials are patient when calling outside of their primary, and only go get something they're confident in and believe needs to be called, it seems that the better option, at least regarding contact, is still to make the call since you're still much more likely to be right than wrong.

Here's a novel concept. Have a second monitor next to the main one that is showing a live feed of the TV broadcast (if applicable).

We know the networks will continue filling dead air time by showing multiple looks of the replay over and over as long as the officials are at the table. So while they're there, they should be able to get the looks piped in by the primary monitor as well as what home viewers are seeing at the same time.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

The game officials are supposed to be offered all video available from the network.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Don't disagree, but we hear time and time again of these feed issues at the table. It's getting old.

But we've been informed on many occasions by the NCAA-M's brass that all feeds are supposed to be available. So we don't need a novel idea, we need process in place to be done properly.

I concur. I believe that I reversed the stats in my previous post.