Maui Invitational Video Plays (Marq vs Wichita St)
 

Play #1:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ONCKDv970QQ" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Play #2:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bzDULL__Sq0" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A few more to come.

Peace

And play 1 would still be a violation under NFHS rules. (And I will still get yelled at and a bad rating from the coach when I call it)

Play 2 I look forward to what you guys say, I don't think that should be a foul, but I'm not sure why.

1) BC violation (in High School)
2) What did the defender do wrong?
-Jumped sideways.
-Landed on ground w/o contact
-Did Not move towards shooter

Call an Offensive call on the shooter for jumping into defender. Shooter initiated contact. Or call nothing

Play Added by request
 

Play #3:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4TeIhr9V65s" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

The announcers really annoyed me during a sequence when the springy haired WSU player was called for a block along the sideline between center court and the 28 ft line, then was called for a charge a few minutes later.

I know I strongly disagreed with their analysis of the sideline block - they couldn't be more sure that it should have been ruled a charge and were upset about it. However, the defender's right foot was OOB. Therefore, no LGP in NFHS rules. Not sure about Collegiate rules.

Would like to see the video and hear from college level officials about that specific play.

Play 3 should have been a block. The L had a poor angle to see the continued movement that brought the defender barely into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne. If not for the continued movement, there would have been no contact.

Play 1: Correct no call

Play 2: Defender not legal, CC

Play 3: Blocking foul, very tough to detect

+1. There was a LGP established, but instead of moving laterally to maintain (which he would not have had time to do), he leaned out of his vertical plane. The lean was directly toward the L, and thus virtually imperceptible. I can understand the CI. I’m not really sure how L could have improved his look in the time given. About the only thing he might have done better would be to recognize the bad angle, post, and then hope C had a fist up with a better opinion. Unlikely, however. Really tough play for L on a single whistle.

I disagree that no continued movement would have resulted in no contact. There would have been some. But it would have been small enough that everyone would have been satisfied with a no call.

You're probably right....it would have been marginal at most.

1. no BC
2. no call - the defender has every right to that space and all the contact was initiated by the offense. I wish they would rule on these as offensive fouls
3. block

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

Offense initiating the contact only matters if it is into a legal defender. The defender is this play is not legal.

It looks like the defender just lands when the offensive player takes off. He's entitled to his spot. If the shooter jumped earlier I would definitely agree with you, this just looks a no-call.

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.

I’m with AremRed. Looked at the video several times and while it was close, the defender had not returned to the ground at the point of contact. Even if he had, he might still have been moving toward his opponent which is not maintenance of LGP.

You can say that if the ball handler hadn’t stepped into the defender when shooting, contact may not have occurred. Ok, sure. But what’s to say the ball handler is required to honor an illegal defender and pull up? The answer is....nothing. Good heads up play by the shooter to draw the foul because he sensed the defender committed to the block too soon. Even better correct call by the crew.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

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.

Hahahaha. This made me laugh aloud.:)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

The purpose of seeing video is to see plays that will happen in your game. This play happens a lot in games and because I have seen a lot of videos, I am likely not to call that foul like this on the defensive player. And this is especially the case when I the NCAA says to not call these at all on the defender.

Peace

Hope you’re not implying that I am looking for excuses to get plays wrong.

Pretty sure it’s a given that what we see on the court is not what actually happens. I go slo-mo sometimes to break down a play to see if I got it right or not, but again, that’s not how we referee in real time. The best thing a Ref can do when watching video and finding ways to get better is pretending you are one of the officials in the floor and watching the game at full speed. What should that Ref be watching? When should he switch to a different competitive matchup? When should he switch on ball? Where should he move to see the play? Which defender is he refereeing on a multiple defender play? What’s the obvious call in a situation? Those are the questions I ask — I don’t make excuses, and parsing slo-mo video doesn’t help anyone referee better.

How do you know what makes other officials better? Maybe it doesn't make you better you can't speak what it does for me.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I'm interested in hearing exactly how in this play you are supposed to 1) referee the defenders upper body to know whether it is moving forward or not and 2) judge exactly when one foot touches down making the defender legal.

I'm arguing there are limits to which we can detect parts of a given play. If you want to argue that the defenders big toe touches down before the offensive player initiates contact -- fine. I'm saying I (and any other human) can't see two things at once. Which is why we have judgement. In this play I lean towards calling a foul, whereas you lean the opposite way. That's fine. Just understand that most coaches (who write the rules and to an extent govern an officials advancement) would see this play as an obvious foul.

Coaches are the ones who wrote the rule that they don't want Shooters making unnatural movements to draw contact and get a foul on Defenders who are jumping past, and not into the shooter.

And let's say that the defender was still airborne. He jumped to that spot before the shooter did. The shooter had stopped and then after the defender had jumped to that position, the shooter jumped in that direction.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

It was such an 'unnatural movement' that the ball went through the hoop.

I call it a natural 'draw the foul' move.

It was so unnatural that he shot a jump shot with the wrong hand.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

One doesn't have to make a natural move to score a basket. I should know after playing the game for over 15 years.

One guy that plays in our morning pick-up games has a shot that resembles a martial-arts movement. For him, it's natural.:)

One of the things that makes me better is paying close attention to what the clear consensus is of the veterans who post on this site say - the ones who I choose to respect because of their many years of experience and expertise based on what I perceive to be their level of officiating based on their posts. Once I started "getting it" I started becoming a better official and getting better games. It's not coincidence - it really is important for younger officials who think they know everything - or even experienced officials who think they know everything to pay attention to those who have achieved higher goals and strive to do what they do to become better.

Arem, you have to see the whole play at once. You've got an offensive player obviously diving in to draw a foul. Really, really obvious. I'm not giving him that call. Your statement that most coaches and those who govern ....would see this as an "obvious foul" is absurd.

And i wont be looking for the defenders big toe hitting ground etc. This is where judgment comes into play. Offensive player dives in... i need to see more from defender, moving at him , trying block shot etc. this defender is trying to get the hell out of way. Now, you can call it a foul. Obviously, these guys did. I dont agree. Think they both should have passed. it certainly isnt an obvious foul..