Maui Invitational Video Plays (Marq vs Wichita St)

[cmcramer]

Play two? Foul on defender. Are we to believe a shooter might have to freeze in a step back posture because the defender fell for a shot fake and jumped toward the shooter? Shooter can't even stand up straight? Although not precisely the same....this previous discussion worked this play over pretty well.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...nder-move.html

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cmcramer

Play two? Foul on defender. Are we to believe a shooter might have to freeze in a step back posture because the defender fell for a shot fake and jumped toward the shooter? Shooter can't even stand up straight? Although not precisely the same....this previous discussion worked this play over pretty well.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...nder-move.html

The defender did not jump into the shooter.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by AremRed

We are there to call obvious fouls. I don't think the defender is obviously on the ground when contact occurs, thus I think we should lean towards a foul here. I think it's telling that both guys had it -- that's the expectation at this level.

They both should have passed. This wasn't an obvious foul. And I don't think it's telling at all that they both had a whistle. They both got it wrong. When the offense jumps in that much, that hard, I need to see defender really screw up. Jump forward into shooter. I think it was the wrong call.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

They both should have passed. This wasn't an obvious foul. And I don't think it's telling at all that they both had a whistle. They both got it wrong. When the offense jumps in that much, that hard, I need to see defender really screw up. Jump forward into shooter. I think it was the wrong call.

Agree. The shooter gave up on the open shot and went for the foul. That isn't something I reward. And IIRC, that (rewarding a shooter for unnaturally creating contact) was something either the NCAA or NBA said they wanted to eliminate.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

but, since it wouldn't have been the fifth foul, ....

Hahahaha. This made me laugh aloud.

[AremRed]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The defender did not jump into the shooter.

Is the defender legal?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Is the defender legal?

Was the defender even Airborne when contact was made? Or had his first foot already hit the ground and the shooter stepped into him?

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Is the defender legal?

He has a right to his spot. And he is not responsible for contact when a shooter throws himself into his position. The NCAA made this very clear they do not want this to be a foul on the defender when the there would be no contact as a result of the shooter's unnatural motion into him.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Is the defender legal?

Simply saying a defender isn't "legal" isn't grounds to call a foul on him all the time. Unless covered by situation/rules a better use is "what did the defender do wrong?"

The offensive player jumped into the defender simply to "draw" a foul and in no way looked natural. I'm passing on this unless told otherwise.

[AremRed]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Was the defender even Airborne when contact was made? Or had his first foot already hit the ground and the shooter stepped into him?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He has a right to his spot. And he is not responsible for contact when a shooter throws himself into his position. The NCAA made this very clear they do not want this to be a foul on the defender when the there would be no contact as a result of the shooter's unnatural motion into him.

Oh I definitely agree the offensive player moved forward to draw the contact. That's without question. My understanding of the NCAA-M emphasis is more for the play where the defender is clearly going to the side of the offensive player and the offensive player moves laterally to intercept the defenders path.

I do not think this play with the defender still airborne, in front of the shooter, moving toward the offensive player is the type of play that demands a no-call. The defender might have returned one foot to the ground but I'm not good enough to tell in real time.

[AremRed]

Originally Posted by deecee

Simply saying a defender isn't "legal" isn't grounds to call a foul on him all the time. Unless covered by situation/rules a better use is "what did the defender do wrong?"

The offensive player jumped into the defender simply to "draw" a foul and in no way looked natural. I'm passing on this unless told otherwise.

I didn't say all the time. I said in this specific instance. What did the defender do wrong in this instance? He jumped first, jumping toward the offensive player, compromising his position. Can't play legal defense jumping toward an offensive player and there being significant contact. Offensive player was smart to see the illegal defender and move forward to take the contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Oh I definitely agree the offensive player moved forward to draw the contact. That's without question. My understanding of the NCAA-M emphasis is more for the play where the defender is clearly going to the side of the offensive player and the offensive player moves laterally to intercept the defenders path.

I do not think this play with the defender still airborne, in front of the shooter, moving toward the offensive player is the type of play that demands a no-call. The defender might have returned one foot to the ground but I'm not good enough to tell in real time.

The defender jumped in a direction that would have avoided the shooter. Defenders are entitled to their space also. The shooter took such an unnatural motion with his shot that he ended up shooting with his off-hand.

I'm no-calling this based on what I see on video, which is:

1) defender jumps in a path that is not in the direction of the shooter

2) shooter takes an unnatural in order to seek out contact

When I review video, I don't say "I would not have seen that in real time". When I review video, I say "I need to look for that in my games so I can get it correct."

[AremRed]

Originally Posted by Raymond

When I review video, I don't say "I would not have seen that in real time". When I review video, I say "I need to look for that in my games so I can get it correct."

My first time watching a play at full-speed is most important to me IMO, cuz that is most similar to what happens in-game. Sure you can slow down the video and go frame-by-frame and parse things but that doesn’t really help cuz we don’t referee on the floor that way.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My first time watching a play at full-speed is most important to me IMO, cuz that is most similar to what happens in-game. Sure you can slow down the video and go frame-by-frame and parse things but that doesn’t really help cuz we don’t referee on the floor that way.

The hell it doesn't. It shows that what we think we see on the court is not always what actually happens, and that we need to adjust how we are looking at plays.

That is one of the purposes of video. Look for reasons to get plays right, not excuses to get them wrong.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The hell it doesn't. It shows that what we think we see on the court is not always what actually happens, and that we need to adjust how we are looking at plays.

That is one of the purposes of video. Look for reasons to get plays right, not excuses to get them wrong.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Agree. Slow motion replay is to understand how we got it wrong and then know what it would look like at full speed so we can get it right at full speed.