Video request: NU/Mich 1-and-1 confusion

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

Was that Elaine from Seinfeld? It shows how everyone can lose focus and screw up. There is a human element to our profession that can't be fixed. I wonder if there are any ramifications from their assignor/evaluator.

Yes that was Julie Ann Dreyfus. She has a daughter that goes to school there. Ironically one of my friends met her as her daughter is also going there and they are both in the same class.

Peace

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes that was Julie Ann Dreyfus. She has a daughter that goes to school there. Ironically one of my friends met her as her daughter is also going there and they are both in the same class.

Even bigger connection: The son of Julia Louis-Dreyfus and comedian Brad Hall is on the NU team.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

The lead saw a foul before the act of shooting began and you want him to wait and whistle it even later?

I don't understand your confusion. Its a play that is in the C's primary. I'm suggesting the L have more of a patient whistle.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have no issues of the L calling this as the ball is in the lane when the foul occurs and that is what the L has in the mechanics. He also has more of an open look than the C as it is coming down the lane and towards the end line. The C might see it but is looking through bodies

I think the C has a great unobstructed look at the time of contact and again just think the L should have been more patient in going into the C's primary for this. JMO.

I do not think the shooter's upward motion started, which is the standard at the NCAA Men's level. It look like he was still trying to push through and I am not giving shots if I see it that clearly. It was close, but I think he got it right.

I can live with that. I just have a different opinion.

I am assuming you mean after they are ready to shoot the FTs?

Yes, if the C saw the L indicate 2 as they were about to administer the FT, he should have blown the whistle for a reset to get it right. Obviously, he didnt see it.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Whether or not it should have been a shooting foul, the Lead clearly wipes off the shot and points to the spot of the foul, so the administering official should have known it wasn't 2 free throws.

The Lead had no reason to put a whistle on that play. The ball was outside the paint on the C's side of the court, near the free throw line, and the C had an open look on the play. The Lead should have left that play to the C.

Yes, the calling official indicated very clearly that it was a non-shooting foul. So the new L just must have lost track. It happens.

But agree completely on the L's whistle. I don't mind him coming in later but he doesnt appear to give the C a chance to ref the play right in his lap.

Originally Posted by Rich

The C didn't even call a foul.

The NCAAM standard is upward motion. If the L said it's before the shot (and he does so VERY CLEARLY), then it's before the shot.

Obviously, if the official blows their whistle and wipes off the shot then that's what we have.

I'm just offering my opinion from the couch that I don't agree with it. I think its the Cs play all the way and would prefer that the L be more patient. And on this type of play, I'd prefer to award 2 shots to the offense. Again, JMO.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't understand your confusion. Its a play that is in the C's primary. I'm suggesting the L have more of a patient whistle.



I think the C has a great unobstructed look at the time of contact and again just think the L should have been more patient in going into the C's primary for this. JMO.



I can live with that. I just have a different opinion.



Yes, if the C saw the L indicate 2 as they were about to administer the FT, he should have blown the whistle for a reset to get it right. Obviously, he didnt see it.



Yes, the calling official indicated very clearly that it was a non-shooting foul. So the new L just must have lost track. It happens.

But agree completely on the L's whistle. I don't mind him coming in later but he doesnt appear to give the C a chance to ref the play right in his lap.



Obviously, if the official blows their whistle and wipes off the shot then that's what we have.

I'm just offering my opinion from the couch that I don't agree with it. I think its the Cs play all the way and would prefer that the L be more patient. And on this type of play, I'd prefer to award 2 shots to the offense. Again, JMO.

Except they're being held to a much more strict standard in college men's -- no benefit of the doubt going to the shooter certainly.

Lead is king.

[HokiePaul]

A little off topic, but are the college administration of FTs different than NFHS?

The lead made the call and appears then go switch with the C opposite table and the C administers the FT.

In NFHS, the calling official is staying tableside as T and T is administering these FTs

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

A little off topic, but are the college administration of FTs different than NFHS?

The lead made the call and appears then go switch with the C opposite table and the C administers the FT.

In NFHS, the calling official is staying tableside as T and T is administering these FTs

Yes, the calling official goes opposite the table.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Yes, the calling official goes opposite the table.

... in NCAAM. NCAAW is the same as FED (in this instance, and recognizing that some states have the calling official go opposite in HS).

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't understand your confusion. Its a play that is in the C's primary. I'm suggesting the L have more of a patient whistle.

If the L waits longer, then calls a foul before the act of shooting, he is going to have a problem.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

If the L waits longer, then calls a foul before the act of shooting, he is going to have a problem.

This wasn't a do-or-die play, the Lead should just leave it alone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I think the C has a great unobstructed look at the time of contact and again just think the L should have been more patient in going into the C's primary for this. JMO.

It is not about him being unobstructed, he is looking through a player to see contact, while the lead can see the space between the players and can see the arms. I have no problem with his call or the way he called it. That is the play they want the lead to take responsibility for and no one is really in his way to see it. That is according to the CCA book and what is being taught at camps. They want the lead to be the primary on these plays much more at the Men's level. It is talked about in just about every pre-game.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about him being unobstructed, he is looking through a player to see contact, while the lead can see the space between the players and can see the arms. I have no problem with his call or the way he called it. That is the play they want the lead to take responsibility for and no one is really in his way to see it. That is according to the CCA book and what is being taught at camps. They want the lead to be the primary on these plays much more at the Men's level. It is talked about in just about every pre-game.



Peace

Short version: Lead is king.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Short version: Lead is king.

In Men's college he is on this play.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

In Men's college he is on this play.



Peace

You do know we're agreeing, right?