NCAA Tourn - Thursday March 22 Video Requests

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

There are lots of holes in the monitor rule. I had a game this season where as lead I called a player control foul on a drive in the lane. The C came in and told me he was 100% certain that the defender, a secondary defender, established with one foot on the RA line. I no longer had the number of the defender as I was going PC, and my partner didn't either. We changed the call to a block and indicated it was because the defender was in the RA. When the C and the referee went to the monitor to determine the number of the defender, they saw that the defender was not and had not been in the RA. Unfortunately, this aspect of the play is not reviewable and we were stuck calling a foul on a player that we knew with 100% certainty had not committed a foul.

It is a terrible position to be in and it sucks seeing that you got the play wrong on the monitor and the rules do not allow you to correct the mistake.

I don't understand your rules predicament as I'm unclear how you got into such a situation. Could you please elaborate?

Why did your crew change the call from PC to block prior to using the monitor?

Seems to me that the way that the NCAA tourney crew handled this last weekend was perfect. The PC was reversed to a block only after consulting the monitor.

14:37 2nd half of Xavier-Arizona.

Pat Adams makes a good travel call when Bluiett drags pivot foot before defensive foul, Chris Mack throws papers on ground and doesn't get whacked.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't understand your rules predicament as I'm unclear how you got into such a situation. Could you please elaborate?

Why did your crew change the call from PC to block prior to using the monitor?

Seems to me that the way that the NCAA tourney crew handled this last weekend was perfect. The PC was reversed to a block only after consulting the monitor.

Actually I think they were looking at the monitor for the exact same reason Johnny was, to get the number of the defender, as the calling official likely only had the offensive player's number. An RA call is not reviewable, but getting the correct number of an offender is.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

14:37 2nd half of Xavier-Arizona.

Pat Adams makes a good travel call when Bluiett drags pivot foot before defensive foul, Chris Mack throws papers on ground and doesn't get whacked.

Did he call a travel or a PC?
The Lead had a whistle on this play too and was indicating a foul with a closed fist.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did he call a travel or a PC?
The Lead had a whistle on this play too and was indicating a foul with a closed fist.

He called a foul on the Xavier player according to the play-by-play.

Peace

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did he call a travel or a PC?
The Lead had a whistle on this play too and was indicating a foul with a closed fist.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He called a foul on the Xavier player according to the play-by-play.

Yup, looks like it was called a PC. Weird, on the replay they showed I thought Pat had an open palm.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Yup, looks like it was called a PC. Weird, on the replay they showed I thought Pat had an open palm.

The lead almost had a "Block" and it was close to a blarge.

Peace

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The lead almost had a "Block" and it was close to a blarge.

Peace

I saw that too. He had both fists up ready to come down emphatically on his hips to sell it too.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't understand your rules predicament as I'm unclear how you got into such a situation. Could you please elaborate?

Why did your crew change the call from PC to block prior to using the monitor?

Seems to me that the way that the NCAA tourney crew handled this last weekend was perfect. The PC was reversed to a block only after consulting the monitor.

The monitor cannot be used to determine whether or not a secondary defender established position inside/on the RA. C and T are responsible for helping the L out on block/charge plays in or near the RA in that if the L calls a PC, as I did, then the T or C can come in with definitive knowledge that the defender was not legal because of RA, the call is then changed. My partner provided me with information, he claimed it was definitive knowledge, so the call was changed based on his presentation. We were not allowed by rule to use the information provided by the monitor review to reverse the call a second time.

As another poster has pointed out, in the play you are referencing, it was the officials were most likely looking for the numbers of the players involved, not confirming the position of the secondary defender with regard to the RA. If they were doing the latter, they have no rules support to do so.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I saw that too. He had both fists up ready to come down emphatically on his hips to sell it too.

Peace

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I saw that too. He had both fists up ready to come down emphatically on his hips to sell it too.

The offensive player trying to make a basketball move to the goal, defender moves into the cylinder space of the XU player. The play happens quickly as the T attempts to position adjust above the players but the drive happens at the same time. The L does not have a "competitive match up" in his primary area of coverage and "goes fishing "in the T's pond; it ends up being a closed look with when the contact happens. Tough play.

[bucky]

To me, that is a standard cylinder play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by johnny d

The monitor cannot be used to determine whether or not a secondary defender established position inside/on the RA. C and T are responsible for helping the L out on block/charge plays in or near the RA in that if the L calls a PC, as I did, then the T or C can come in with definitive knowledge that the defender was not legal because of RA, the call is then changed. My partner provided me with information, he claimed it was definitive knowledge, so the call was changed based on his presentation. We were not allowed by rule to use the information provided by the monitor review to reverse the call a second time.

As another poster has pointed out, in the play you are referencing, it was the officials were most likely looking for the numbers of the players involved, not confirming the position of the secondary defender with regard to the RA. If they were doing the latter, they have no rules support to do so.

Thank you for the explanation. I did not know that. I thought that the NCAA tournament crew used the monitor to look at the defender's feet not his number.