UCLA @ Oregon Plays (Video)

[rockyroad]

1. So very close. No real issue with not calling that. Can't really tell, even in slow-motion, who touched that first.

2. Like the double T's. Clean that crap up early!

The PC call looks solid to me. Not so sure about the FF1...don't think I would call that an INT in HS game.

[Camron Rust]

1. Very tough to tell from the angle provided.

2. Good calls.

3. PC, easily.

4. Good FF1. He held onto him after not getting the ball to make sure the player couldn't complete the shot. Not a basketball play.

5. Nothing....insignificant.

[billyu2]

1. Difficult to tell. If in doubt play on. I liked that the official
communicated that he felt blue touched it first in the bc.
2. Good call and excellent job of staying with and identifying the players and
their numbers.
3. PC
4. I would go with intentional.
5. Nothing.

[jeremy341a]

Is #3 even close to not being a PC?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by camron rust

1. Very tough to tell from the angle provided.

2. Good calls.

3. Pc, easily.

4. Good ff1. He held onto him after not getting the ball to make sure the player couldn't complete the shot. Not a basketball play.

5. Nothing....insignificant.

+1

[Blindolbat]

1.Can't really tell, even in slow-motion, who touched that first. If we can't tell even in slo-mo it would be hard to have a whistle.

2. Well deserved.

3. No doubt - PC

4. I'm not going Intentional on that. Appears to be a play on the ball in my opinion that is not excessive. Hard to come up with that from behind the play too.

5. That is basket interference.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

5. That is basket interference.

Which part do you think is BI? The player touching the backboard or the rebounding on the other side?