Vid request: Wash vs OSU - 2 whistles for phantom foul?
 

With 1:35 left in OT. L and C call foul on OSU player. Foul or not?

My 2 cents - I say no foul. I can understand one official missing something but 2? Maybe I missed something.

Two plays (Video)
 

Play #1:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nJdCyvrZxkA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2: The play requested
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Iskfry2AW8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Play 1: Yes, I was questioning that too. Foot in RA. Should have been a block and partner should have brought the info, although....there was a lot of stuff happening.

Play 2: C immediately signals block and L nods head in agreement as if it was something obvious. I saw nothiiiing.


(Thanks JRUT!!)

1) I believe that is a block on its own merits, but it is most definitely a block with the RA

2) Illegal contact by defender's right knee followed by ballhandler going down = a foul. If he stays upright and maintains his footing, then no-call.

Great observation. I admit I missed that my first few viewings but it's definitely there. I think that's enough for a block.

I get your point, and am not denying the knee is there, but it has NOTHING to do with why that defender goes to the ground. His knee didn't push the leg out giving the illusion of a slip, that player just flat out slipped.

There is no way you can say that definitively. The offensive player loses his footing immediately after the contact, no matter how slight. There is a strong case to be made the contact affected his balance.

Looks like a really tough call in real time. But on replay I think there is not only a knee but a slight body bump as well, which is a point of emphasis- at least in NFHS- this year.

Does this kind of contact, and more, happen all the time in the post at that level? Of course. But again, there is support for illegal contact by a defender resulting in a ball handler losing his balance.

That along with two officials immediately having the same thing. I'm deferring to them on this.

Not true. It was everything about why he went down. The dribbler ran into the knee and upset his balance.

Or, did he pull the foul out and forward before contact, perhaps, giving him a position outside of the RA? I couldn't tell for sure, but it seems possible.

Play 1: Block, even without foot in RA. From Lead looks like a PC though.

Play 2: It's a foul, and a slip. Defenders knee, then offensive player slips.

If he does that, then hasn't he given up LGP, so it's still a block?

Ok, I can concede that I can't say that the contact has nothing to do with the slip, but for the same reason, you can't say it has EVERYTHING to do with it. I think that player slips with a legal defender as well, the bump contributed less than 10% of why he eventually fell, which is a number I made up to help my argument.

I guess I don't mean to criticize the officials when they probably got it right, my point is that I think if this was not called, we wouldn't be talking about how it should've been called, even if that play was still clipped and presented to us here.

If that foul is not called the coach for UW is sending a clip of that play into the PAC 12 supervisor before he leaves the facility. It's a 50-50 type play where the officials have to make a decision. Score/time/foul count/previous plays all have to be taken into consideration in a moment's time.

#1 looks like a block to me with or without RA

#2 - I'm not good enough to make that call

Only if he is still moving forward at the time of contact. Moving forward along doesn't netgate LGP, it can still be maintained even when moving towards the opponent if that forward motion has ceased before contact.

Yes -- if he pulled the foot forward, then it was still moving at the time of contact -- it may or may not have been removed from the RA

You can see from one of the angles that his upper body is moving forward and sideways at the time of contact.

Yes you are! When you see these plays just make sure to watch the defender closely and look for the point of contact cuz that is often where the foul is. In plays like this the defenders love to stick their knees in there to displace the opponent, so that would be a further clue.

And if we consistently call this foul when the ball-handler is disrupted it will discourage the tactic in the future.

These guys are coached to do this subtle tactics in hopes that officials will not see the contact or will think the contact is marginal.

While that might be the case, I don't believe it is necessarily the case. I can easily see that a player could stop moving forward (based on the torso) but not put the foot back down.

Hmmm -- this might be a rule differenca. I think the NCAAW rule is that if initial LGP is inside the RA, it's a block (unless the player re-establishes LGP outside the RA, and, of course, assuming the rest of the conditions are met). I know if the player establishes LGP outside the RA, the player can back into the RA and be legal.

I know this is semantics, but initial LGP cannot be established within the RA, because by definition that isn't LGP, correct?

Good point. In this case, you could argue that the player started from a position outside of the RA (perhaps obtaining LGP), stepped side ways into it, then stepped forward. It is never called that way, but it could be argued.

Incorrect. You can still have LGP in the RA -- it's just that sometimes the illegal contact is ruled a charge and sometimes it's ruled a block, depending on what lead to the illegal contact.

That is a general statement about all plays, right? In the play in question from the OP, it is a secondary defender, so he cannot establish LGP within the RA. Or am I misinterpreting the wording? Is this a thing where LGP can be obtained anywhere technically, but if it is established within the RA, its more or less useless (again as a secondary defender) because it will be ruled a block regardless?

This.

And, in NCAAW, it's not always illegal for the secondary defender -- only if the play starts outside the LDB, and there hasn't been a secondary move in the LDB, or the offense doesn't lead with an arm or foot, etc.

I hope the Fed never brings the RA into the high school game.

He attempted to pull his foot forward, but it was still in the air at the time of contact. And his left shoulder was moving forward at the time of contact.

Pretty much useless, unless the offensive player leads with a knee/elbow/arm and creates illegal contact.

I agree with the block for the body still moving forward. But does the foot actually have to be on the floor to have LGP? What if the player gets out of the RA entirely (perhaps by several inches), stops moving forward and jumps straight up without touching the 2nd foot down outside the RA?

Don't have access to rules right now, but under guarding there is verbiage about 2 feet must be on ground to re-establish LGP.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

True, but if the player had it before sliding over into the RA, doesn't such a player maintain it and not have to reestablish it at all. (I did mention earlier that it could be argued that the player may have had LGP before stepping into the RA).

On this play he did not have LGP outside of the IRA, but yes you can establish it outside and then retreat into it

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk