UCLA @ Michigan plays (Video)

[hamnegger]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1 and 2 seem like routine calls.

(3 isn't posted, yet)

Wow I thought play 1 was a great defensive play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

Wow I thought play 1 was a great defensive play.

I'm not sure he even touched the ball on that play.

[walt]

I agree with Camron. Look at #14's left arm. That doesn't happen naturally. At full speed, with the flight of the ball going backward, I can see why some may think the defender hit the ball. However, it looks to me like he got hit on the left arm which caused the ball to come loose. The defender didn't argue or look surprised by the call.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

Wow I thought play 1 was a great defensive play.

You don't see the contact on the offensive player's elbow?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

You don't see the contact on the offensive player's elbow?

Not independent of the ball I do not. There is some incidental contact after the ball was defended, but that would not be a foul from my point of view if I saw it as clearly as the slow motion.

Peace

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not independent of the ball I do not. There is some incidental contact after the ball was defended, but that would not be a foul from my point of view if I saw it as clearly as the slow motion.

Peace

I see enough contact with the elbow to say he lost the ball due to that contact, and not from a clean steal. The defender's reaction tells me I'm not entirely wrong, either.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I see enough contact with the elbow to say he lost the ball due to that contact, and not from a clean steal. The defender's reaction tells me I'm not entirely wrong, either.

We will just have to disagree about that one. I have also had opponents react in ways that they think they did not foul, only to act differently when you tell them exactly what you saw. That happened Tuesday on a block where my partner called a foul. You would have thought he was completely clean only when I told him "I saw the off arm" and the kid smiled and completely backed off. I do not put much stock in their reaction. Because even most of the time when you call a foul they overreact. Does that mean we should think we missed the call then?

Peace

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We will just have to disagree about that one. I have also had opponents react in ways that they think they did not foul, only to act differently when you tell them exactly what you saw. That happened Tuesday on a block where my partner called a foul. You would have thought he was completely clean only when I told him "I saw the off arm" and the kid smiled and completely backed off. I do not put much stock in their reaction. Because even most of the time when you call a foul they overreact. Does that mean we should think we missed the call then?

Peace

No. Most of the time players, whether innocent or guilty, will react like they didn't commit the foul. So while it isn't hard evidence, it is evidence none the less.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

No. Most of the time players, whether innocent or guilty, will react like they didn't commit the foul. So while it isn't hard evidence, it is evidence none the less.

If you want to go with that, you have that right. I just think there was not much contact with the elbow or the reason the ball was jarred loose. The ball was jarred loose to me by the contact with mostly the ball and maybe some hand contact as stated. Again, looking at the video I would want that call back if I was the one that made the call. If I had not made the call I would be happy that I got it right in my mind and in my philosophy. I do not know any steal that is perfect without contact on some level (or a block for that matter).

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not independent of the ball I do not. There is some incidental contact after the ball was defended, but that would not be a foul from my point of view if I saw it as clearly as the slow motion.

Peace

To me, he hits the ball with his right hand BEFORE the contact to the elbow with his left hand. The impetus for the ball coming loose is not from the elbow contact, it's from the Michigan player hitting the ball.

In that situation, Michigan wants a steal or a foul. The foul call actually helped Michigan as UCLA recovered the loose ball and would have ran additional time off the clock.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

Wow I thought play 1 was a great defensive play.

In real time, I probably have a foul.

In slow motion replay, I'm not convinced the defender made any contact with the UCLA player. In fact, it looks like the UCLA player was grasping the ball so tightly, that the force of the defender's hand moving toward the ball caused the UCLA player's long, lanky arms to give and move backward a bit before releasing the ball.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

In real time, I probably have a foul.

In slow motion replay, I'm not convinced the defender made any contact with the UCLA player. In fact, it looks like the UCLA player was grasping the ball so tightly, that the force of the defender's hand moving toward the ball caused the UCLA player's long, lanky arms to give and move backward a bit before releasing the ball.

This view of the play I can understand.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk