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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I would also like to know the answer to this

I think most have him gathering with the left foot on the floor about in the middle of the FT circle. Then a step with the right and a step with the left.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think most have him gathering with the left foot on the floor about in the middle of the FT circle. Then a step with the right and a step with the left.

After watching a few more times, I still don't see control until after the left foot is off the ground. I don't see it as that conclusive, but it is interesting to watch these plays over and over. There's such a fine line sometimes. I think this is not a travel.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

3) have a normal foul. I call my share of intentionals and FF1's, but this would not be one of them.

Are you at least giving him 4 FTs?

[BryanV21]

I think it's important to, at first, stick with a normal foul. Then take a moment to review the play in your head, and possibly see what your partners think, before upgrading the call to an intentional/flagrant.

Especially for officials, like me, that can let their emotions get the better of them.

If you do that, then it'll be very hard to be second guessed.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I think it's important to, at first, stick with a normal foul. Then take a moment to review the play in your head, and possibly see what your partners think, before upgrading the call to an intentional/flagrant.

Especially for officials, like me, that can let their emotions get the better of them.

If you do that, then it'll be very hard to be second guessed.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

The opposite argument is that flagrant/intentional fouls should be obvious and officials should call them such right away. Doing what you just advocated leaves the crew open to criticism from a coach of "why didn't you make that call in the first place?" Or it will be said that at first the officials called this then changed their minds and called that. You are going to walk into exactly what you desire to avoid.
My advice:
If an action fits the POE or definition/instruction have the courage to make the proper call. (Especially in contests without a monitor)

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The opposite argument is that flagrant/intentional fouls should be obvious and officials should call them such right away. Doing what you just advocated leaves the crew open to criticism from a coach of "why didn't you make that call in the first place?" Or it will be said that at first the officials called this then changed their minds and called that. You are going to walk into exactly what you desire to avoid.
My advice:
If an action fits the POE or definition/instruction have the courage to make the proper call. (Especially in contests without a monitor)

I understand this side of the discussion, and when it comes to an intentional foul you're probably right. But I disagree when it comes to a flagrant foul, especially since an ejection comes with it.

This season my partner called a flagrant foul and ejected a player. We talked about the call after the game and it turned out his call was excessive and a regular tech would have sufficed. But too late. That player was gone for part of the second quarter and the remainder of the game. And that's the problem.

By the way, courage has nothing to do with it. It's about being fair. So good for you if your initial reaction is correct 100% of the time, but some of us do make errors. An error on a violation stinks, but at least the kid can still play.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

When in doubt, throw 'em out!

[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?