Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[ODog]

On play 3b, I don't think a FT violation by the shooter is nearly as obvious as some of you do.

Is she a nanosecond early? Yes. Does her being in the lane and getting the rebound of a quick brick make it look worse? Yes. But that's a tough hair to split in the final seconds of a state final (or whatever this is).

She waits out 98 percent of the flight before the ball hits the rim, and if I'm the C, I'm frying bigger fish by that point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ODog

Is she a nanosecond early? Yes. Does her being in the lane and getting the rebound of a quick brick make it look worse? Yes. But that's a tough hair to split in the final seconds of a state final (or whatever this is).

Being on this floor is considered the "State Finals" no matter what games you work. For the record there are 4 games each day (Friday and Saturday). Semifinals are on Friday and the Title games and 3rd place games. There are 12 officials assigned for the weekend and each official works a game each day. Officials assigned are considered "State Final Officials" in the record book regardless of if you work a title game or not that year.

This game was the 1A Title game for girls in a 4 class system. Also 1A-2A plays one weekend and the 3A-4A plays the following weekend. Each gender has their own weekend and officials do not work a lot of both genders in the playoffs in total, but there are exceptions if the schedule allows them to work both.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Play 1- Falls under Call The Obvious.

Play 2-Rules justification for intentional, sure. And the official obviously has a better look live than I do on my cpu. But I'd go common with that minimal contact/grab.

Play 3- I don't see clear travels on either play and am passing on both. Also passing on the potential FT violation. All marginal.

Easy to say from my couch but I don't like the sequence on just the videos here. Missed the obvious and then marginal, IMO, intentional and travel call wiping a bucket.

And the clock did seem to run some over 2 seconds after the whistle for the travel if the video is accurate.

[Camron Rust]

#1. Obvious foul on red 10.

#2. Nothing...at most she touched her. She didn't grab the shirt even if she was actually trying to.

#3. Legal play

#4. FT violation. Shooter was running in before the ball got to the rim and actually got the rebound. Remember that she is in when the foot crosses the plane, not when it touches. After that, she traveled. Caught in the air, right foot, left foot, left foot, right foot....travel.

#5...the clock should have been reset to 11.5. They were shorted 3 seconds. Hard to say if it made a difference but it may have given the losing team time for 1-2 more passes and a chance at a better shot.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001173]#1. Obvious foul on red 10.

#2. Nothing...at most she touched her. She didn't grab the shirt even if she was actually trying to.

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense. Rock and hard place?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense.

I think that we are saying the same thing? A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on? Needs to be some contact for me otherwise you would be punishing a good play by the offense if they are able to "avoid" the contact.

[Camron Rust]

[QUOTE=ronny mulkey;1001253]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

#1. Obvious foul on red 10.

#2. Nothing...at most she touched her. She didn't grab the shirt even if she was actually trying to.

From experience here - it is better to get the intentional "touch" so that she doesn't feel that she has to subsequently tackle her to accomplish her goal.

Generally, I agree. But in this case, I find it hard to stop that play.
The touch was maybe just a brush of the finger tips on the shirt...not a grab/pull on the jersey. It wasn't the type of play where they were just trying to stop the clock.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001267]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Generally, I agree. But in this case, I find it hard to stop that play.
The touch was maybe just a brush of the finger tips on the shirt...not a grab/pull on the jersey. It wasn't the type of play where they were just trying to stop the clock.

I don't think it was trying to stop the clock, either. I do think she was trying to "neutralize an obvious advantageous position" part of the rule.