Duke @ Notre Dame Plays (Video)
 

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N3lER76GzH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2:

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

Play #3:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/D-RT2NRwWxQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

First of all, Dakich is an ******* and a moron!!

Secondly, thanks for posting my bluedevils.

Play 1, to me, was clearly PC. Like 100%.

Play 2: depends on which foul was being called. There is a bump as ball handler makes the curl. He gets fouled again after the gather. No shot on first foul, in the act on the 2nd.

1. Charge
2. Continuous motion

Re. the first video. This is especially applicable on the high school level. Those working on and assessing those on the NCAA level may have differing opinions.
When an official's first impulsive movement in immediate reaction to a play like this is two fists rising from the hips, there's only one call that's gonna result. Most who start with two fists rising default to a block because of the early initiation of what will become the later fist-banging-on-the-hips signal, regardless whether it was actually a charge or not.
At least on the high school level, that seems to be true.
Further reason why to insist upon the approved mechanic of a single fist in the air first, then go to the foul signal.
Anybody else find this is true?

(Come to think about it, JD Collins insisted upon that very same thing to his NCAA-M officials this preseason, didn't he?)

Play 1. Easy PC

Play 2. No shot. Very patient whistle.

Play 3. I see two hands on the back as the inside player is gathering himself to go up. Correct call in my opinion.

Play 1: Easy PC

Play 2: Shooting, correct tech though

Play 3: No foul

1. PC
2. Shooting
3. Nothing

I guess I missed the 3rd video.

No foul in that video. Was not a rebounding push.

1. is a PC 100% of the time. That shouldn't be missed at this level or even in HS. Heck, he was even "set" ;)

2. If the call was on the bump at the elbow that was one really late whistle. That looks like a shooting foul to me and I can't blame the coach for reacting the way he did.

3. No foul, but I'm sure it looked like one from the T's angle, but that is all the more reason he shouldn't make that call.

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.

That's T's call all the way.

1. PC

2. Would have been continuous motion, but the player traveled. So, no basket, award two shots.

3. Hold on blue / black.

I think you meant to say "a late whistle is what complaining fans and coaches yell at you when you are patient and see the play from start to finish". A patient whistle is a good thing.

1. PC
2. Foul by the book, sure. A good call with player driving getting below foul line with limited contact not having any effect on ball handler. No, this is not a good call at this spot on the floor. He should have let the play develop and finish!
3. no foul

#1: speaks for itself

#2: I don't see anything prior to the shooting motion

#3: Not a whistle that official should have had from that position on the floor. He was already high in the Trail, then missed the rotation. Old Center/New Trail was still in position to see that rebounding action, as was the Lead after his rotation.

#2 - I don't either, I'm only commenting on what the official seemed to call. The last replay shows how early he's wiping off the basket.

#3 - I think the old C has the better look through the two players and his trigger wasn't tripped.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cause I'm not ever in a position where I'm locked and loaded.

"Watching, watching, 2 hands, that's a foul, WHISTLE."

It wasn't that long.

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

It wasn't that quick either for a pretty simple call. Whistle at the moment of release makes it look bad. Although IMO he was correct that the original foul was before shooting motion began.

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.

Big Boys
 

These officials are big boys in a big league. hey did not get here without making mistakes and learning from them.
I would think once they sat down talked , saw the video, they would admit that the calls were suspect at best, and survive through a learning situation.
One of the good things about officiating, you learn in every game!

I might give mine back tomorrow. I could use a night off.

I never want to have 7 games in week.

I did 5 HS and 1 JUCO game last week. It was a lot for me, 6 nights in a row on top of the day job and the assigning duties I have as well.

I observed instead of working Monday and I might do the same tomorrow if I can get someone to take my place.

Wisconsin right? Pay me mileage and I'll be there.

Four in a week is too much often times. I did this for about 3 or 4 weeks in a row a few years back and I was exhausted.

Peace

1. PC . . . What else does a guy have to do.

2. Would I like a patient whistle hear, probably. Is there contact with thr arms before any motion starts, I guess. Big problem here is that if the level of contact that gets you to call that foul before the shooting motion starts is the standard now. . . Well lots of guys without scholarships are going to be seeing the floor.

3. I think it's technically a good call, for the hold down and arms in the back, but it's not gotten a lot.

What I thought he meant was the official was seeing the whole play through. My question was why do you need to see the rest of the play if you are going to rule the two hands a foul anyways. I did not realize he meant the official was still processing the original contact and not actually watching the play though.

All most all nights we do are double headers. There is even the rare occasion where there is 3 in one night. It is not uncommon for some to have 10 or more games a week.

There is absolutely such a thing as a late whistle, in relation to whistle timing. If an official wants to call this handcheck play at the elbow he needs to be much quicker with his whistle timing. Remember, quick above the FT line and slow and patient below because we have plays to the basket (such as this one).

This player already has a full head of steam and is well in motion to the basket by the time he gets to the FT line, thus the official should be patient and either no call the made layup or come in with an and-1.

Additionally, given the time and score the official should absolutely have a later whistle cadence to be awarding shots on this play. Don't look for reasons to not award Free Throws.

Is "whistle timing" new camp-speak?

Missed that one.

He's visible in the frame waving off the shot as the player finishes.

And 2 hands is an automatic - we don't pass on it just cause it has no effect on the play.

two hands
 

Two hands is an "automatic"!

I just do not like this statement and philosophy. Contact happens in basketball: and, officials should judge what the contact does. if it alters what player is attempting to do make a call! If it does not play on!

In the open court above the foul line you can make a case for a hand check with this "limited contact"?

But, with offence closing on the defence, and the defence retreating below the foul line, the contact not changing what the offence was doing- leave it alone, make him a shooter!

The game is more fun when we let the athletes be athletes, and, do not get in their way because something is "automatic"

The rules makers have decided what are automatics, not me.

Time warp. They tried your way. Gave us the Knicks. Ugly basketball. Fact is automatics are needed because referees can't tell what contact affects offense and what doesn't. U put your hand on my hip, i assure you it is bothering me. But, I'm not going to flop around and exaggerate it. No one in the gym will know but me.

There's no legitimate reason for a kid's hand to be on a dribbler....it's done to slow them or bother them.

Well here is the rule.

Peace

Didn't this guy say he was an observer?

Just what's needed....ANOTHER observer who doesn't know or doesn't care about the rules.

Yes. Along with extended arm-bar, one hand that stays on (other than a "hot stove" touch), alternate hands, the same hand more than once. By rule. The "tower philosophy" does NOT apply to these plays.

Thank you for being a fan of college basketball.

"Immediate whistles on the perimeter shots, patient whistles on drives to the basket" as a general guideline.

I would venture to say this official reviewed the video and wishes he would have counted this basket. Yes, he waved it off immediately upon blowing the whistle, but that contact occurred as part of the shooting motion.

I thought that originally but if you look at the first 8 seconds I think u can see he was calling foul before any shooting motion. I think he called a foul when he saw it.

On the flip side, don't look for reasons to award free throws either. Call it the way you see it. Eliminate any judgement when you can. If you are looking for reasons to do things then you are using too much judgement.

The most I've worked in one week this year was 6 and that was during tournament time. I prefer less.

Wow, you guys go to extremes. "The Knicks" That is a blast from the past!

The right call, at the right time, for the right reason! Adds to the game and officials who can do this are very valuable and work the the important games.

Officials who apply all the rules only by the book stay home on Saturday night.

Knowing and applying the rules to fit the game, is where the Art of Officiating begins.

Blowing the whistle because the book says so, shows you can read, it does not show you have the skill or talent to be an artist(official).

Was the call right by the book? Certainly.
Was it at the right time - player driving below the foul line going to shoot, NO it was not.
Was it for the right reason? By the book sure, in any comman sense why in what players were doing, NO.

I just happen to think there is value in applying the rules to fit the game. some of you think the value is in the rules, not there application and that is OK.

Hmm. No way to eliminate judgment on these plays.

Like I said, eliminate judgement when you can. The best officials find balance between calling it by the book and adapting to the style of play. No doubt. Putting my personal belief of not awarding enough free throws and going looking for those types of fouls is not my style. The play we are debating is not even that bad; the T.V. commentator makes it worse than it really is. The biggest thing here is that a foul was called.

Sure there is. If you seen it before the shot then stick to that. Don't say to yourself "this guy needs to be awarded free throws". Just get the foul and move on.

Oh, BS.

The powers that be have told the officials at the HS and college level to take the art out of certain calls. Two hands on the ball handler is one of those.

You can either do what you're told or not.

You gotta be an artist and a scientist.

no not BS! watch games on Saturday and see if every situation is called by the book!

Do not always believe the powers to be! It may limit your ability to do the job!

Apply the rules fairly, consistently and in a fashion that fits the game.

Lighten up, the rules set out the guide lines and structure to the game. The interpretation and application of them make the game.

You obviously did not pay attention to what was said. No one said call it totally by the book. And you do not have to believe the powers that be, but the powers that be decide who works what in the post season. That often is who ultimately decides what we do. At that time it is JD Collins. And JD Collins is telling what should be done. And yes, they are calling the game differently since John Adams and now JD Collins are in power. The evidence is who gets post season and who does not. Many of the "old timers" that never got on board are no longer a factor for post season assignments.

Peace

You're talking about personal preference, not judgment. We use judgment to determine whether the contact is even a foul. Then we use judgment to decide if the shooting motion had begun. Then we use judgment to decide if it's an intentional foul.

You're using judgment all game long, every time there's any contact between opponents.

You have to use your judgement to make a decision regarding your preference. I don't disagree that we use our judgement every time we take the floor. The more we can eliminate judgement calls, the more constant we can be and the better we become. We have to find balance. To make a considered decision that anything close is automatically going to the free throw line is not good in my opinion.

Hand checking has almost vanished here since the two-hand auto's started.

Tell that to the schools by where i live :/

I hear a lot of coaches nowadays telling their players not to "reach" and "move your feet". The ones who give blowback do so in a purposeful attempt to test the resolve of the officials.

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.

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.

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

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

#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.

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.