Columbia @ Seton Hall (Video) Play
 

This is one we deal with often in many cases.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2YZeqyvSAGY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...part-ball.html


With that being said I think this was more on the wrist than the hand and personally have a foul.

Ball goes down, no foul. Ball goes up, foul. Ball went up.

Mark, Jr., and I were listening to this game on our way home from our game. And now we know that the officials got the call correct: FOUL!


AremRed:

Which direction the ball goes does not determine whether a foul was committed or not.

MTD, Sr.

I have a foul. Obvious on 2nd replay and indicated by how the ball released.

I have a foul as well.

Peace

Great get by the C!

On first viewing, I didn't see who whistled it and just assumed the straightlined L guessed in his PCA and got it right. Nope ... great job by both officials.

Agree. At first view, I didn't think there was much there. On replay, this is definitely a foul and the C is the best person to come and get it. He has the best angle and is in the best position to see the foul. Great get.

Of course that's not the rule, but it can be a help in determining what happened. Just like viewing what the shooter's arm(s) do(es) after some potential contact.

Agree. Clues and indicators are valuable when it comes to judgment. Especially in a patient secondary whistle situation such as this one.

+1. Physics 101!

No good look from the original camera angle... from the replay angle, definite foul, and a great get by C. Can totally understand why L got straight-lined on it.

Newton's 4th Law?
 

Is that Newton's long lost 4th Law? :confused:

Generally agreed, but not absolutely.

Not by itself, but it can be a good indicator.

Most of the time.

When the ball goes up and the arm doesn't, it is almost certainly a reliable indicator of a foul. But, when the ball goes down, it may be either. Getting the ball doesn't mean the defender didn't get the arm first.

Why don't we just go by whether the defender hit the ball, hand, wrist, or arm? Why are we bringing physics, or some type of "cause and affect", into this?

Look at it this way... if a coach asks what his player (in this case, the defender) did wrong, are you going to say "the ball went up"? Of course not. So why use that as a basis for whether there was a foul or it was a clean block?

I guess I can see holding your whistle until you see where the ball goes, and then making the call/non-call. But since there's nothing in the rule book about such a thing, I don't believe it's a good thing to teach.

It's an indicator. Sometimes we are unsure, or it's 50/50. It is part of processing a play. The higher the level of play, the quicker the hands are.

Feel free to do what you wish, but some of us have used these tips to help improve our officiating and call accuracy. No one said you make a call based solely on where the ball goes. But if I'm reviewing video of my game, and the camera angle is such that I can't see the point of contact, I will use what the ball did to determine the accuracy of my call/no-call.

It makes sense. I guess this makes me think of assuming, and I try not to assume anything in life.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk