Duke @ Notre Dame Plays (Video)

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Rich

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LATE WHISTLE!

My God, I can't BELIEVE there are officials saying this. I expect it from clueless coaches, but not from officials who, supposedly, know better.

Look at the trail -- he's ALREADY waving off the shot as the player finishes. It's obvious that he called it on the curl and had no intention of awarding shots here.

#3 -- If the T is calling a hold/push to keep the player down, I don't hate the call. I don't particularly like it, either.

Sorry to have offended you. But my comment is based on the fact that in the last replay of the video the whistle doesn't blow until A1 is finishing down at the block. If that whistle is for a foul that happened two steps ago when he was turning the corner at the elbow, then yes, that is a late whistle. If you aren't going to let him play through it, and you aren't going to award shots, then why let him play through it and let him go up for a shot and get fouled again before you blow? I fully understand the concept of a patient whistle and to let the play happen, but isn't part of that seeing if the guy can play through a smaller foul to allow him to finish? It has always been my understanding that if you let him play through a small foul and then he gets fouled again going up for the shot you don't go back and say 'no shot' I have a hand check back here. This officials mechanics were very good, he clearly motioned that he had no shot, but that doesn't change the fact that he waited to long to blow if he was calling the hand check. And let's be honest, "waited too long" is a split second in this case.

And on 3, I wasn't clear what I meant, I understand that is T's call, but in this particular case the T was at a bad angle and was pretty deep, and he probably guessed there was a push, so he should just hold off on that call.

[Remington]

On play #2.........If you slow it down you can see it is a 10-1-4 foul before the ball is gathered. Yes, I had to slow it down to see that and typically if you have to slow it down either call is supported at live game speed. The player has his right forearm on the players side and left hand on his shoulder as he turns the corner. The official had a patient whistle but he also needs time to process it. IMO either call was supported when the observer broke down the play.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

he probably guessed there was a push, so he should just hold off on that call.

Seriously? You're going to critique a D1 official by assuming that he guessed and based on that conclude that he should have held off? There's no question there was a push there -- the only question is whether it should have been called. I'm never a fan of isolating a single play like this on that type of contact. We expect players to adjust to the game that is being called by the officials that day -- but then we critique a call out of context of the other calls in the game. In a vaccum, I'm inclined to think it should be called, BUT in my mind it is certainly gray enough that the context of the game such that the level of contact being permitted throughout determines if it was (A) a clear call that had to be made, (B) a 50-50 call that could go either way, or (C) a "gotcha" call that came out of nowhere. (And I haven't seen any of the game other than the three clips, so I have no way to pick one of the categories.)

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Seriously? You're going to critique a D1 official by assuming that he guessed and based on that conclude that he should have held off? There's no question there was a push there -- the only question is whether it should have been called. I'm never a fan of isolating a single play like this on that type of contact. We expect players to adjust to the game that is being called by the officials that day -- but then we critique a call out of context of the other calls in the game. In a vaccum, I'm inclined to think it should be called, BUT in my mind it is certainly gray enough that the context of the game such that the level of contact being permitted throughout determines if it was (A) a clear call that had to be made, (B) a 50-50 call that could go either way, or (C) a "gotcha" call that came out of nowhere. (And I haven't seen any of the game other than the three clips, so I have no way to pick one of the categories.)

Yes? The calling official is supposed to be in the C position. It was a recent flex, but still a flex. He calls a rebound foul on a play where he is straitlined and way out of position. He guessed there was a foul there. My comment is to say there is a lead official, heck even an old C/new T that has a better angle at this, both did not call it. So yeah, I think there is a critique to be had here.

[VaTerp]

Late to the party.

Play 1- We all know this is an obvious PC. I think the value of the discussion here could be WHY a good official misses a call like this. It seems to me that the L had a bad angle as he was unable to get to the endline in transition and was fooled by the way the defender fell by turning to the side. I'm not sure what he could have done to get a better angle though. I don't know if stopping enables him to get a better look at the defender.

Play 2- This is a shooting foul all day, every day. I don't care that he immediately wiped off the basket and never intended to award FTs. As much as some people want to take advantage/disadvantage out of the game I think this is an example of why its important. I don't understand penalizing the offense by wiping off the bucket here. I'd bet that after watching on tape he wishes he scored that one.

Play 3- I believe NBA officials refer to this as "bracing" an opponent. The contact could have impacted the player's ability to jump but I don't think it was enough to warrant a call IMO. I don't hate the call but would lean on the side of passing on that level of contact.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Play 1- We all know this is an obvious PC. I think the value of the discussion here could be WHY a good official misses a call like this. It seems to me that the L had a bad angle as he was unable to get to the endline in transition and was fooled by the way the defender fell by turning to the side. I'm not sure what he could have done to get a better angle though. I don't know if stopping enables him to get a better look at the defender.

Looks like another player moved in at the last second and obscured his look on this play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Late to the party.

...

Play 3- I believe NBA officials refer to this as "bracing" an opponent. The contact could have impacted the player's ability to jump but I don't think it was enough to warrant a call IMO. I don't hate the call but would lean on the side of passing on that level of contact.

On this play, I just think you have to trust the 2 partners who have the view of seeing between the 2 opponents.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Looks like another player moved in at the last second and obscured his look on this play.

#2 could have obscured his view a bit but looking at it again, I think he just has to get to the endline, or ahead of the play, faster.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

On this play, I just think you have to trust the 2 partners who have the view of seeing between the 2 opponents.

Yes, and looking at it this one again, he's coming a long way and doesnt have the best angle. Thats a situation where accuracy goes down and you're generally much better served leaving those alone. Especially on something that is marginal at best.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Sorry to have offended you. But my comment is based on the fact that in the last replay of the video the whistle doesn't blow until A1 is finishing down at the block. If that whistle is for a foul that happened two steps ago when he was turning the corner at the elbow, then yes, that is a late whistle. If you aren't going to let him play through it, and you aren't going to award shots, then why let him play through it and let him go up for a shot and get fouled again before you blow? I fully understand the concept of a patient whistle and to let the play happen, but isn't part of that seeing if the guy can play through a smaller foul to allow him to finish? It has always been my understanding that if you let him play through a small foul and then he gets fouled again going up for the shot you don't go back and say 'no shot' I have a hand check back here. This officials mechanics were very good, he clearly motioned that he had no shot, but that doesn't change the fact that he waited to long to blow if he was calling the hand check. And let's be honest, "waited too long" is a split second in this case.

And on 3, I wasn't clear what I meant, I understand that is T's call, but in this particular case the T was at a bad angle and was pretty deep, and he probably guessed there was a push, so he should just hold off on that call.

There is no such thing as waiting too long to blow. Clearly you don't understand that concept.

And on #3, I would categorize that as a hold moreso than a push.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Rich

There is no such thing as waiting too long to blow. Clearly you don't understand that concept.

Question from the soccer referee who doesn't do BB: In this context, what is the *point* of waiting? If it's to see if he gets through it, he does and makes the basket. Is it just thinking and running back through your head?

(In soccer, if we were waiting we would call the more serious offense -- the later foul on the shot. But this ain't soccer . . . )

[Rich]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Question from the soccer referee who doesn't do BB: In this context, what is the *point* of waiting? If it's to see if he gets through it, he does and makes the basket. Is it just thinking and running back through your head?

(In soccer, if we were waiting we would call the more serious offense -- the later foul on the shot. But this ain't soccer . . . )

It's processing the play and making sure that he's right.

Lots of coaches are faster than me when identifying travels or fouls, but I have to actually be right -- and that means that all plays deserve that extra processing time.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Rich

There is no such thing as waiting too long to blow. Clearly you don't understand that concept.

And on #3, I would categorize that as a hold moreso than a push.

Honest question and not argumentative. Why would you wait if you are going to call the first contact a foul anyways?

On 3 right or wrong if he doesn't have his hands on his back he doesn't get called for the foul. He put the official into a bad spot.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Honest question and not argumentative. Why would you wait if you are going to call the first contact a foul anyways?

If you are an official, you shouldn't have to ask this.

It's not that he's seeing the contact, processing it, deciding it's a foul, and then waiting some more...

It's that he's waiting until he's processed what he has seen, and then calling it.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

If you are an official, you shouldn't have to ask this.

It's not that he's seeing the contact, processing it, deciding it's a foul, and then waiting some more...

It's that he's waiting until he's processed what he has seen, and then calling it.

My mistake I will give back my 7 games I have yet this week.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

My mistake I will give back my 7 games I have yet this week.

Sorry... you said you were asking an honest question. I believed you.

The only reason I said, "if you are an official" is that I don't know you and you might not have been one - a coach or fan could have asked that question. That said ... since you've been on the court, I'm not following why you didn't understand what Rich was saying.