Nova-Kansas 34.1

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Considering this type of contact happens in a lot of NCAA games and IS NOT always called a foul, I don't see the logic in your statement. It is a foul, but not one that is always called.

Can you back this up, because from games I have watched and officiated this gets called.

[IUgrad92]

I too, agree this is a foul. However, it appears that C was very content to 'play on', and I think everyone would agree that C has the best angle for this play. If T doesn't have a whistle, looks like it might have been a 'play on' scenario.

Will never know for sure, just my observation.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I too, agree this is a foul. However, it appears that C was very content to 'play on', and I think everyone would agree that C has the best angle for this play. If T doesn't have a whistle, looks like it might have been a 'play on' scenario.

Will never know for sure, just my observation.....

I said this in the facebook discussion, but if the T hadn't come to get this, we'd still be discussing this play as one where the C missed it and the T missed a chance to save the crew in transition.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by deecee

Can you back this up, because from games I have watched and officiated this gets called.

Ok. Let's break this down:

You say thanks to the officials who don't call this bc that is how you have moved up and hit a better schedule.

I said I didn't see logic there bc to me those two things would not be exclusive, mainly bc I see this not called. I said a lot, which may have been a stretch but it does happen and is not always called, which was my point.

Now several others and you have said it is called and doesn't happen a lot.

It can't be both. It's either called or not. My take was on your post that others not calling it is why you have moved up and gotten better games. Just sounded very snide the way your post came off.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Ok. Let's break this down:

Now several others and you have said it is called and doesn't happen a lot.

It can't be both. It's either called or not. My take was on your post that others not calling it is why you have moved up and gotten better games. Just sounded very snide the way your post came off.

I have seen this called several times. Now does that mean plays like this happen "a lot" as you suggested, that would be overstated IMO. But when I have seen players jump on top go guys or displace them in a scrum, I have seen fouls called on "similar" plays. I rarely see nothing called in these situations.

Yes there was a time we just kind of allowed players to do all kinds of things during a loose ball, but since there have been a lot of video and access to the NCAA sharing their positions, those days are gone. No more VHS tape that you only saw at and NCAA meeting. I would even bet that this play comes up in the NCAA video in the future as an example of a foul that should be called. Just because people did not call it, does not make it right. A lot of officials would pass on obvious "intentional" or "flagrant" fouls, but now it is expected we call more of these in this day and age. With all this focus on head injuries and other dangerous play situations, I think we are in a different era than we once were.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Ok. Let's break this down:

You say thanks to the officials who don't call this bc that is how you have moved up and hit a better schedule.

I said I didn't see logic there bc to me those two things would not be exclusive, mainly bc I see this not called. I said a lot, which may have been a stretch but it does happen and is not always called, which was my point.

Now several others and you have said it is called and doesn't happen a lot.

It can't be both. It's either called or not. My take was on your post that others not calling it is why you have moved up and gotten better games. Just sounded very snide the way your post came off.

I see fouls and violations not called too. This is blatant, and ya we can miss it here and there. But if your stance is you don't see a foul, then I am thanking you. It's one less rung above me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Ok. Let's break this down:

You say thanks to the officials who don't call this bc that is how you have moved up and hit a better schedule.

I said I didn't see logic there

Stop right there. This is your break down. deecee's post wasn't meant to be taken logically or seriously, not literally anyway.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

Stop right there. This is your break down. deecee's post wasn't meant to be taken logically or seriously, not literally anyway.

Ruining all the fun

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by deecee

Ruining all the fun

I am the world record holder for not being to infer any type of sarcasm in an Internet post. Y'all gotta use blue font.

And I said I agreed it was a foul. I've not deterred from that opinion

[Referee24.7]

Cut and dry - the contact wasn't legal and nowhere is there even an argument that it was an "equally favorable" play. . .

Nice pick-up by Ratstatter from the trail