Mountain West Title: SD St. & Fresno St (Video)

[Nevadaref]

When in doubt, throw 'em out!

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It wasn't totally clear, but from what crosscountry wrote it seems that the D3 supervisor didn't see the play either yet decided to criticize the official.

No, he didn't see the play, but I was standing right next to his clinician when he was given a fair and accurate description of the play. And virtually without hesitation, he said, "that's not an intentional foul." I was humbled. And I'm not upset with the supervisor; I have too much respect for him to disagree with him.

This all plays into why I'm surprised (and troubled) that the call made in the OP clip was a FF1.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

No, he didn't see the play, but I was standing right next to his clinician when he was given a fair and accurate description of the play. And virtually without hesitation, he said, "that's not an intentional foul." I was humbled. And I'm not upset with the supervisor; I have too much respect for him to disagree with him.

This all plays into why I'm surprised (and troubled) that the call made in the OP clip was a FF1.

The play in the OP will likely end up on an NCAA training video for FF1 calls. It is absolutely what the NCAA brass wants deemed an FF1. What is surprising and troubling is that you and this supervisor don't understand that.

[APG]

Put me in the camp of not upgrading play 3 to a F1.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The play in the OP will likely end up on an NCAA training video for FF1 calls. It is absolutely what the NCAA brass wants deemed an FF1. What is surprising and troubling is that you and this supervisor don't understand that.

You speak as if your interpretation of this play is the definitive source. There have been quite a few officials in this thread who do not believe play 3 is an FF1.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You speak as if your interpretation of this play is the definitive source. There have been quite a few officials in this thread who do not believe play 3 is an FF1.

How many of them were on the court using the monitor in that game?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How many of them were on the court using the monitor in that game?

I'm not saying they are wrong, they get paid for their judgment. I have my opinion of what I would rule. But I'll remind you of this response the next time you blast a college official for their judgment.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Texref]

Guess according to Nevada the foul in Duke UNCW game (about 16 left in second half) should have been a flagrant. Defender grabbed the shooter's arm at the elbow and made no play on the ball. Guess what they went to the monitor and reviewed and kept it a common foul... Guess what else, it was the same official as the one in this thread. Hum... The FF1 in this play was NOT for the hit to the arm, it was because the defender's off arm "wrapped" around the shooter. I still don't have a problem with the the call, I've just stated that it would only be a hard foul in my game at live speed with no replay.

[Raymond]

Uh oh, the the drama continues.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

"...according to Nevada the foul in Duke UNCW game (about 16 left in second half) should have been a flagrant. Defender grabbed the shooter's arm at the elbow and made no play on the ball."

When I see the play, I'll certainly give my opinion. If it is a fact that the defender "made no play on the ball," then by definition it should have been an FF1.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

"...according to Nevada the foul in Duke UNCW game (about 16 left in second half) should have been a flagrant. Defender grabbed the shooter's arm at the elbow and made no play on the ball."

When I see the play, I'll certainly give my opinion. If it is a fact that the defender "made no play on the ball," then by definition it should have been an FF1.

Not according to the officials who looked at the monitor

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not according to the officials who looked at the monitor

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Or, maybe it is possible to call that a play on the ball that just missed and ended up on the arm. If they swiped at the ball but missed and hit the arm, I'm OK with going with a common foul, even if they hang onto it just a bit as long as it doesn't become excessive.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not according to the officials who looked at the monitor

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Game. Set. Match.

[Sharpshooternes]

Anybody considering a multiple foul on play 3? You have a shooter fouled in the act of shooting and then being fouled again by a different player before they return to the ground. I have never called it but thought if any play deserves it it would be a play like this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Anybody considering a multiple foul on play 3? You have a shooter fouled in the act of shooting and then being fouled again by a different player before they return to the ground. I have never called it but thought if any play deserves it it would be a play like this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you can explain to a coach in less then 20 seconds how you're going to administer this, go ahead.

I called a MF once when I was a smart-@$$ rookie who thought I knew the rulebook better than anyone else. Let's just say feedback from an evaluator after the game was....enlightening.

But, for the sake of rules trivia, say you did call a MF here. How would you administer the penalty?