Ohio State @ Iowa Plays (Video)

[JRutledge]

Play #1:


Play #2:


Play #3:


Play #4:


Peace

[Camron Rust]

1. Charge
2. Can not tell from angle but it looks soft.
3. Travel
4. (edited) watched on a proper screen...i say charge now with a better view.

[JRutledge]

Play #5:



Peace

[Pantherdreams]

1pc
2 not wrong call but not a lot to be seen from this angle.
3travel
4 charge
5 travel

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

1pc
2 not wrong call but not a lot to be seen from this angle.
3travel
4 charge
5 travel

ditto

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

1pc
2 not wrong call but not a lot to be seen from this angle.
3travel
4 charge
5 travel

Same, on #2 no one had a better view than the calling official, it's tough to make any argument against that person with out a closer angle.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Same, on #2 no one had a better view than the calling official, it's tough to make any argument against that person with out a closer angle.

To me, this was more about his mechanic and his positioning. I have no idea if what he saw was actually there, but he is right there to call it and made the call confidently. Also, it did not appear anyone said anything. So that tells me something about the call.

Peace

[Raymond]

1. I'm good with that call

2. We don't have the Lead's angle

3 & 4: rather easy correct calls

5: a travel that is not called at the high school level or the college level

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Raymond

5: a travel that is not called at the high school level or the college level

So is it "not called" on purpose, or because it is hard to catch when the "gather" was to nail the pivot foot so it passed on as uncertain? How many think they would see it and call it in the games they do?

(My cynical mind from the stands thinks it is less likely to be called in HS on a player perceived as a star or great ball handler than on a role player. But maybe that is just sour grapes from my son's last game when an elite player seemed to get the Kobe/MJ treatment . . . .)

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

To me, this was more about his mechanic and his positioning. I have no idea if what he saw was actually there, but he is right there to call it and made the call confidently. Also, it did not appear anyone said anything. So that tells me something about the call.



Peace

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Same, on #2 no one had a better view than the calling official, it's tough to make any argument against that person with out a closer angle.

This brings up an interesting epiphany I’ve had over the last week, supported by a great email from our association last night. With less and less post play, and more and more zone defense, I find myself without many matchups to watch as the lead. So I’ve been tempted to stay a little wider and open up (say 60 vice 45 degrees) to at least have something to officiate. Technically the area inside the arc is lead’s, but many coverage diagrams show that hashmarked “dual coverage” area where both L and T are looking, so historically I’ve ceded a lot of that space to the T. Maybe I need to be more aware of that space (for example where the foul was called in #2). But....how much is too much? At what point do I risk having four eyes in the corner and missing an unexpected drive or cut in the paint? It’s a conundrum for me as the game evolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

1. I'm good with that call

2. We don't have the Lead's angle

3 & 4: rather easy correct calls

5: a travel that is not called at the high school level or the college level

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Agree on #1, but there was some award winning floppage at the very end that sealed the deal for the L. I have to tip my cap to the defender for the sell.

For #5, I agree, but worth noting that we did some great video review at a meeting a couple of weeks ago on spin moves. What we ultimately determined as a group was that it is virtually impossible to spin 180° like this and not travel. Human ankles don't rotate on ball bearings. The only time it might work for the ball handler is if he/she deceives on the gather and instead takes another dribble in the spin. Short of that, I think you've got a travel 90% of the time or more. Called one just last night that I might not have before the video review. No one argued.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

This brings up an interesting epiphany I’ve had over the last week, supported by a great email from our association last night. With less and less post play, and more and more zone defense, I find myself without many matchups to watch as the lead. So I’ve been tempted to stay a little wider and open up (say 60 vice 45 degrees) to at least have something to officiate. Technically the area inside the arc is lead’s, but many coverage diagrams show that hashmarked “dual coverage” area where both L and T are looking, so historically I’ve ceded a lot of that space to the T. Maybe I need to be more aware of that space (for example where the foul was called in #2). But....how much is too much? At what point do I risk having four eyes in the corner and missing an unexpected drive or cut in the paint? It’s a conundrum for me as the game evolves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For starters, we're in the same association

This is precisely why the NBA/NCAAW give the entire corner to the lead once the ball is below FT line extended. That said, as L, working wide when there's no competitive matchup in the paint or on the block is ideal as you'll be able to see BH/D, defender, and potential secondary defender without having to position-adjust.

Excellent epiphany!