NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Saturday March 18
 

I will be gone again and will not be back until Sunday.

So let us start a thread with this play on it. I will try to get all the plays up when I get home.

Peace

Wisconsin-Villanova

15:33 second half. Block/Charge on a fast break

CBS
Wisconsin v Villanova
2nd half 36.4 seconds left
This is a team control foul!!!
Hope the crew gets this right.
Nope, they blew it and awarded FTs. A critical mistake.

They knew it, talked about it, and said white had control. Which is, imo, complete nonsense. If that tip constitutes control, we need to reset the shot clock a lot more often lol.

And actually not even that hard of a determination. They huddled for a long time and got it wrong.

I was just watching that myself... I thought they were discussing if it would be a FF1 or not. The WI player reached out and grabbed the Villanova player and there was no possible way for him to "play the ball" as they say. I would've strongly considered calling an intentional foul under FED rules.

I am even more surprised by this incorrect interpretation because NCAA-M emphasized team control fouls in situations exactly like this during multiple in-season training videos this season.

Agreed. FF1 was a real possibility, otherwise, team control foul was 100% correct.

This crew didn't have a great game overall. They got their share of calls correct, but had other strange moments. For example, there was a play in the 2nd half in which the Lead called a held ball while both the C and T were whistling a foul against Wisconsin.

I disagree that it was an F1 -- it was a TC foul.

You and JD Collins were on the same page because that is the exact same thing he referenced in the trainings. :)

I have plenty of deficiencies, but for some reason, this is one type of play I am pretty good at recognizing but I have a LOT of partners who struggle with it. A number of times I have come in as one of the non-calling officials and asked about team control (or told them if I happened to see the whole play), and they frequently seem like they hadn't even considered that we shouldn't be going to shoot free throws on the other end.

Well, about 4:50 to go in the NW/Gonzaga game and there is a Zag player that blocks a shot by going through the hoop. Collins becomes unglued and runs on the court to receive immediate T. Officials totally missed the BI but Collins had no right to act that way, especially after his behavior earlier. Got too much of his dad in him, lol.

You could clip the last 10 minutes of the Gonzaga/Northwestern game. Two observations. Missed a hand through the goal for a blocked shot, and it took way to long to deal with Collins.

NCAA statement on the call and subsequent T.

https://twitter.com/lukewinn/status/...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

I'm saying Collins acted like an idiot all game, and should have been dealt with way earlier before that play.

Collins acted like an idiot in all the games I saw this year.

I think there are two possible reasons that they didn't consider (or at least go with) and FF1....

1. The player reached out with his arm as he ran by, not a grab from behind.
2. The other player really didn't have an obvious advantage...he was chasing a ball that was going quite likely going OOB.

Of course, my point #2 is in contradiction with the fact that they deemed the Villanova player to have obtained control.

And I agree this crew have a rough game. I think there were several misses. However, the biggest ones I can think of favored Villanova. So, that certainly didn't cost them the game.

One and only one warning -- and the person receiving it knows who he is.

Next time, you can sit out the rest of the tourney again. Let it go.

Coverage on the missed BI play....Is the The Trail's call who was table side or the Center who was opposite table? Would this miss likely end this crew's run?

JRut, didn't want to start a new thread without your blessing, so here's a video request from March 19:
Michigan-Louisville, second half, 5:30 left. Louisville player blows a dunk but remains hanging on the rim in order to help corral the rebound.

Officials ruled BI, but nothing more. In HS, you could argue this was 10-4-4a (placing a hand on the ring to gain an advantage). Is the rule different in NCAAM, or were the officials likely going with the least disruptive call in a tight game?

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

Peace

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

Peace

They pointed at the floor as if it was an RA block but he obtained LGP outside of the circle then stepped back into it. If it is a block, it can't be due to the RA. I have charge.

I know we had this conversation before but this would be a secondary defender as this is an outnumbered break. Some might disagree, but this is why it was called a block IMO.

Peace

Isn't that irrelevant when a defender gains LGP outside of the RA since the RA is about obtaining LGP?

You cannot be there at the time of contact. So even if you back up into the RA, you are a secondary defender, you have committed a blocking foul.

Peace

That is not what the rule says.....it only says that all defenders are a secondary defender on and outnumbering fast-break. It doesn't say they lose previously gained LGP by backing into the arc.

Then the RA rule says:

NCAA Case Book:

This case says that if the defender gets initial LGP outside the area, it can still be a charge. It doesn't restrict the defender's movement after gaining LGP.

Agree with Rust on the rule. Disagree about where he established LGP. I think his right foot is on the line when he established.

Not saying you are wrong however....

When the ball handler crosses the 3-pt line (pause vid at :08), do you feel that the defender is in LGP? At the same time, do you feel that the defender is still a secondary defender?

IMO, the defender established LGP well before the contact and at contact was considered to be a primary defender. (for outnumbering fast-breaks, defensive players are secondary defenders initially). I know why they called this a block however I feel it should have been PC.

I do not disagree that the language is fuzzy, but that is not how the rule is applied. When the player is in the RA during contact, that is what they seem to want to be called a block. Many examples have been shown on video to support that position. Because I have seen secondary defenders back up into the RA and get called and have seen video that supports this.

Peace

I actually include this in my college pre-games. Once establishing LGP, the secondary defender can retreat into the RA and absorb contact.

Excellent rules point stated by Camron and backed by BNR.

I can see your point. I would not go so far as when the dribbler is at the 3 point line. Perhaps when he is at the free throw line. I can see why some people would go that route and I don't have a problem with it, its just not what I would do in this type of situation.

A pet peeve of mine. I always go to my partners when they have whistles on this type of play. Unfortunately they aren't always willing to take the time to reprocess the play in their head and we end up shooting free throws. :mad:

I believe that was the discussion.

To me, a hand through the basket is best seen by the Lead.

#1: I think it can be debated if initial LGP was when he placed his right foot on the RA.

#2: I think it is a Block regardless because he slid to his left after A1 was airborne.

I agree and he is probably not looking there. And I bet the other officials had some doubt as to where his hand was. Because he could have hand his hand in the net and not had a BI. But it was a miss and I think it was not tragic either. It probably surprised them as you do not see that every day for sure.

Peace

I also do this, and often also end up not changing their minds. I do think it is possible on this type of play to gain control if there is a clear push of the ball rather than a traditional tip, though that isn't the case here.

Be careful. Per the rules book control is gained only by holding or dribbling the ball. A bat or push of the ball may begin a dribble, but may not meet the standard for establishing control.
In such cases, the officials probably need to ask themselves, "Did the player dribble the ball?"

You're right, and the scenario where I would deem it a dribble is one in which the ball essentially comes to rest in the palm, and is redirected directly towards the hoop, not a tip. If that were the case and they were then fouled by the (former) offensive player, I would certainly consider this control and worthy of FTs.

Any chance of re-posting this? It isn't playing on YT, thanks.

This play was flagged by YouTube for Copyright issues. I will try, but I have to figure out to get around this one. It was a longer video, maybe I will make it shorter. But something tells me that will not matter.

Funny I can see the video.

Peace

Use this link and forward to 8:25. You can see the play that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRTHabd0Gm0


IMO - Clearly not a dribble and clearly a TC foul. Also, clearly intentional foul on reach/grab. Ergo, crew did not adjudicate play correctly...twice.

(guess that is one reason why I am home at desk and not reffing the tourney;))

I don't remember exactly... but on the broadcast it was brought up... something like "we're waiting to get an explanation" and then someone (not sure if it was one of the game officials, the alternate, or someone involved with the monitor) said something to the effect of "trying to determine if team control had changed or not, and they determined that it had". Nothing was mentioned about a possible FF1.

That may have happened however the monitor can not be used to determine judgement calls.

Pat Driscoll came over to the broadcast crew and informed them that the crew determined that control was obtained by the Villanova player and FTs would be awarded.

If you replay a video of the game, you can see and hear Driscoll give this statement.

Does anybody here see anything that established team control?? I don't.
They said they used reply and called it control, what am I missing?

IMO, The touch is a "bat or tip" not a dribble.
I can see getting confused in the heat of the moment, but with reply......

Fuzzy? This isn't one of those fuzzy things. It may be how you and other are applying it but that doesn't make it right. Perhaps in those videos, they didn't deem the defender to have gained LGP before backing into the circle.

Per the NCAA Men's Basketball Central Hub via Art Hyland - Rules: Rules Clarifications and Play Situations (November 17, 2016):

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Unless you see the videos on a regular basis where they give examples of these plays, then those plays are often shown as a RA block. And it is really the case when there is a outnumbered break where the defender moves and is in the RA during contact. So I get what you are saying, but you clearly are trying to "gotcha" with the rule, while not realizing that they put out almost weekly videos of plays which have caused some confusion at times. So I am not convinced they got this wrong in practice. And even this Hyland example caused some confusion and was talked about in pre-games.

Peace

LOL...see the Art Hyland play quoted above. Apparently, you're misunderstanding the rulings or the reason for the rulings.

And you have it backwards....the "gotcha" is calling such a player with a block when they deserved a charge just because he ended up with a heel on the line.

I did not misunderstand his ruling, I think they have been contradictory. Again, there is video that has muddied this water. I actually worked a game where this was unclear based on a video the NCAA put out about a similar play. But then again, do you work college? You have access to the videos? This was discussed this year about what is the proper thing. That was put out this year and then there was a video that looked like the player backed into the RA and a block was encouraged to be called. Also, they appeared to call a block because of the RA in this play. So if I am misunderstanding the information put out, I guess I am not alone. You can play the "This what Art Hyland said..." but you do not appear to be aware of the videos that are put out based on this conversation and other conversations that are discussed on staffs or with fellow college officials. And I am sure if this is wrong, the NCAA will either clear up their wording from Art Hyland or make it clear when J.D. Collins comments for the coming year if they do not change the rule or the interpretation.

Peace

Whatever you've seen, the statement above is 100% clear. Continue to rationalize your error all you want. That doesn't change the facts.

And continue to ask me if I care what you think? Nope, not one bit.

When you start working in the games I work, maybe I can worry about what you think of Art Hyland or what we were told at the pre-season meetings.

Peace

Same thing I said in the other thread.

I don't care about resumes, what either of you work, none of that crap. None of that impresses me nor should it.

Be nice to each other or ignore each other or something before a moderator needs to get involved further.

I'm closing this thread, too. If someone wants to post videos, open another one.