Video request: Xavier beats Creighton on final drive/foul

Play 1: Not a travel. But I see D1 guys "save" a player a foul with this type of call all the time. Don't like that, this travel is splitting hairs and not consistent with the way other foot action is officiated in different parts of the game.

Play 2: Not a foul. Weak shit.

Play 3: Also not a foul, but 'consistent' with Play 2.

[Amesman]

This is a great example to debate (clip 3), and it's not fair to the comrade in stripes because we can play it back and forth all we want (thanks again, Rut).

But, ultimately, if you're in that situation, other than showing you're paying attention, rotating and coming out strong with the call -- all done superbly -- just what the heck could you tell No. 32 to do differently next time? (OK, OK our job is not to coach ... )

But breaking this down, it's a sincere request. Take a look: What does this guy have to do differently next time? Be honest. He was in his own spot in time and jumped straight up. The clutter from No. 4 pinching (did he foul?) admittedly made it more confusing in real time.

It's a heat-of-the-moment call that could have gone either way. But with the benefit of video breakdown, it's tough to say this is something to punish a defender for -- at any point in the game.

Probably the most remarkable thing of this is the restraint 32 showed afterward.

And, no, I have no dog in this fight. I'm also not criticizing a fellow official. It's all about the learning aspect for next time, as far as I'm concerned. Grateful for the help this board always offers.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Amesman

This is a great example to debate (clip 3), and it's not fair to the comrade in stripes because we can play it back and forth all we want (thanks again, Rut).

But, ultimately, if you're in that situation, other than showing you're paying attention, rotating and coming out strong with the call -- all done superbly -- just what the heck could you tell No. 32 to do differently next time? (OK, OK our job is not to coach ... )

But breaking this down, it's a sincere request. Take a look: What does this guy have to do differently next time? Be honest. He was in his own spot in time and jumped straight up. The clutter from No. 4 pinching (did he foul?) admittedly made it more confusing in real time.

It's a heat-of-the-moment call that could have gone either way. But with the benefit of video breakdown, it's tough to say this is something to punish a defender for -- at any point in the game.

Probably the most remarkable thing of this is the restraint 32 showed afterward.

And, no, I have no dog in this fight. I'm also not criticizing a fellow official. It's all about the learning aspect for next time, as far as I'm concerned. Grateful for the help this board always offers.

The foul was on #4, not #32. IMO, the contact from #4's left leg causes A1 to travel before releasing the shot.

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The foul was on #4, not #32.

OK, THAT I can buy into, if someone wants to press that point. That's what I get for watching with the sound down and seeing the overabundance of camera on No. 32. It actually looks like 4's chest, not leg bumps shooter. And to tell the truth, that was my initial reaction in real time. Then got distracted by so much 32.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Play 1: Not a travel. But I see D1 guys "save" a player a foul with this type of call all the time. Don't like that, this travel is splitting hairs and not consistent with the way other foot action is officiated in different parts of the game.

Play 2: Not a foul. Weak shit.

Play 3: Also not a foul, but 'consistent' with Play 2.

1) First you say it's not a travel, then you say it's splitting hairs. It is a travel. Whether or not it is consistently called is another debate.

2) Close enough to the release of the shot, and significant enough contact to call a foul in this situation.

3) Significant enough contact to call a foul (on #4), especially in consideration of the previous play.

You still have the annoying habit of bashing officials instead of analyzing and breaking down plays. If you're going to call it "weak sh!t" here, then say it to them when they are observing at your camps. But don't be "that guy" who mouths off anonymously on social media, but not publicly with your name attached.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

1) First you say it's not a travel, then you say it's splitting hairs. It is a travel. Whether or not it is consistently called is another debate.

2) Close enough to the release of the shot, and significant enough contact to call a foul in this situation.

3) Significant enough contact to call a foul (on #4), especially in consideration of the previous play.

You still have the annoying habit of bashing officials instead of analyzing and breaking down plays. If you're going to call it "weak sh!t" here, then say it to them when they are observing at your camps. But don't be "that guy" who mouths off anonymously on social media, but not publicly with your name attached.

+1. The lack of respect shown for people who worked very hard to get where they are is astounding.

And, frankly, people are not as anonymous as they think they are.

[#olderthanilook]

1. No travel. Right foot pivot foot.

2. Minor contact. Big time flop.

3. Travel on Black #3 before anything else happened (left foot pivot foot). Probably difficult for T to judge unless he steps down more on the play so he can see ball status.

edit: Technical foul on White coach for leaving his coaching box/time out area to scream "that's bull shit!" "that's awful!".

[sdoebler]

Was hoping this would get posted. I went to Creighton so am a fan and not entitled to give an opinion on these plays.

Interesting to hear peoples thoughts though. Difficult plays to make game time decisions on.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Was hoping this would get posted. I went to Creighton so am a fan and not entitled to give an opinion on these plays.

I don't think that's true at all -- as long as you recognize your bias(es), and provide rules-based reasons for your responses

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think that's true at all -- as long as you recognize your bias(es), and provide rules-based reasons for your responses

Well with the disclaimer I will give my opinion:

1. I personally dislike the notion of if the foul on the 3 point shot is a foul then the final one is a foul also. With the amount of video available to officials/assignors/interpreters every play has to be refereed individually.

2. IMO white #4 establishes legal guarding position facing the defender and moves backward. The black player initiates the contact with white #4.

3. In somewhat contrast to my first point, like plays do have to be refereed consistently throughout the game. Throughout the course of the game I thought that there were plays well officiated in regards to LGP and verticality. There were instances were contact took place with a defender in LGP and this was deemed a charge or incidental.

4. Evon Burroughs is a great official with the best look at the play and it is difficult/impossible to definitely overrule him here.

[bucky]

Play 3: Clearly not a foul on 32. I can see the foul on 4 as being correct. What irritated me the most was the L's position. A vast majority of plays occur on the right side and once the dribbler turned in the BC to come down the right, he should have closed IMO. Otherwise, he is looking through multiple bodies. With the way the play actually went, L should not have had a whistle and trusted C's position/look. If L would have done that, then I bet we are not even talking about this play.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Was hoping this would get posted. I went to Creighton so am a fan and not entitled to give an opinion on these plays.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. Old habits die hard.

The foul was a great call as an unabashed Creighton hater. As a neutral official, it was marginal but I think you can support it with video.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Was hoping this would get posted. I went to Creighton so am a fan and not entitled to give an opinion on these plays.

Interesting to hear peoples thoughts though. Difficult plays to make game time decisions on.

I am a huge Michigan fan and post many of my videos of Michigan games. I often will show plays specifically that were against Michigan and give the officials the credit for calling the foul or not calling the foul when it is appropriate. Being a fan is one thing, but being an official is another.

Peace

Originally Posted by Raymond

1) First you say it's not a travel, then you say it's splitting hairs. It is a travel. Whether or not it is consistently called is another debate.

2) Close enough to the release of the shot, and significant enough contact to call a foul in this situation.

3) Significant enough contact to call a foul (on #4), especially in consideration of the previous play.

You still have the annoying habit of bashing officials instead of analyzing and breaking down plays. If you're going to call it "weak sh!t" here, then say it to them when they are observing at your camps. But don't be "that guy" who mouths off anonymously on social media, but not publicly with your name attached.

Whoa whoa whoa, nowhere did I bash any of the officials on the game. You think I did, because I disagreed with the calls. However disagreeing with a call and thinking it is weak/not consistent with other calls made across the game/league/D1 is not the same as bashing an official. All three guys on this game are excellent officials and while I may not like a call here, I have tremendous respect for their resumes and how hard they work. Full stop.