Video Request - WVU @ Kansas

[bob jenkins]

1) Foul

2) Do not call the violation

3) Block

4) BI -- shoot two FTs

[thedewed]

I thought the straight arm to Udoka was a foul, they didn't get, then a few seconds later when Udoka flopped, that wasn't a foul, and that is about the first time I've ever seen a KU player flop.

Late a WV player tried to flop and draw a charge on Udoka and the refs rightfully ignored, but the point is that he WV players know that refs have been gullible to this and pushed it.

I thought Lightfoot took a charge, he got there just in time, both feet out of the arc, and the contact from the driver pushed the left foot back inside the RA, that doesn't count. Nice bang/bang charge, close but he's there.

That offensive BI shouldn't ever be called even if technically could have been.

That's kinda like calling a technical for face guarding, as the rule book at one time indicated, and probably still does. Has anyone ever called it?

A couple drives by WV where there was slight contact in the first half but weren't called, could have been, but other than that, the ft discrepancy was WV living on jump shots, and WV trying to take KU's 3's out of it, so KU driving more often. Several plays where WV in their pressure could have been called for fouls, that Bilas pointed out.

I would be interested in seeing the last play where Huggins went nuts. WV driver took the ball into Udoka, creating the contact. Udoka tried to jump straight up but jumped at a little bit of an angle. That was the most interesting call/non-call of the night, and set Huggins off. My rule of thumb was always if a small brought it to a big, big, and always gather and take step and jump up, and if got ball up top you'd have to see him really come through the shooter in the follow through. Players should be able to go vertical. Not sure Udoka did a good enough job in this instance of squaring up and going vertical, but the angle I saw of it wasn't great. That would be a good video to see.

[RedAndWhiteRef]

I think it's a good block call, and I don't have BI here because it's clear and obvious to me that the shot is pretty much down anyway. You could argue the player was grabbing the rim to protect himself.

[RefRich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

2) Do not call the violation

Why? It was obvious, especially the second one.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RefRich

Why? It was obvious, especially the second one.

I only recall one in the video, and I'm not going back to look.

But, I disagree with the assertion that some have made "there's never an advantage / disadvantage criteria on violations" -- and this is one example.

Heck, others have made that claim on the BI play -- "the ball was almost all the way through, so don't call the BI"

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I disagree with the assertion that some have made "there's never an advantage / disadvantage criteria on violations"

Agree.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES
... it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

Read it. It says rules, not fouls. All rules, not just fouls, require attention to intent/purpose/advantage/disadvantage. And that includes violations, like three seconds, ten seconds on free throws, etc.

[Jay R]

I agree that it is a block but by pointing to the restricted area, it's as if he's saying it is only block because of the restricted area

[Altor]

On the first FT, it was his second step that crossed the FT line. For those that say adv/dis, I can understand on that one. The second one however made the FT only 14'10". I'd argue that's an advantage.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

But, I disagree with the assertion that some have made "there's never an advantage / disadvantage criteria on violations" -- and this is one example

If we assume that you can consider adv/dis on violations, isn't it an advantage to the free-thrower if he is allowed to step over the line early?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If we assume that you can consider adv/dis on violations, isn't it an advantage to the free-thrower if he is allowed to step over the line early?

I'll call that violation (not just over the line, but also on the line, which is often duly noted by coaches in the first half) every time. Actually called it just a few nights ago, and previously called it four, or five, times this season.

I would never consider not calling that violation, nor would anyone else on my local board.

But, keep in mind, I've spent my entire thirty-seven year officiating "career" isolated here in a little tiny corner of Connecticut, and haven't been exposed to anything else first hand.

For those that would ignore that violation, it probably comes down to, like a lot of other things discussed here on the Forum, "When in Rome ...".

[Camron Rust]

1. Foul. He was using his hands to hold the opponent off at a distance. The defender was trying to move closer.j

2. Violation. Sometimes called, sometimes not. It is an advantage...the shooter effectively took a shot from less than the required distance. Even if it were not an advantage, we have zero cases where we're told to ignore infractions based on lines, zero. A player is either in or out, no grey.

3. Charge. Defender got both feet down, facing, in the path before the shooter left the floor. It is very close, but the defender did get there.

4. BI, but often uncalled.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... we have zero cases where we're told to ignore infractions based on lines, zero. A player is either in or out, no grey.

I believe that we're on the same page here, but just to be sure, I agree with the sentiment of your general statement (out of bounds, inbounding violations, backcourt, free throw lines, and lane lines, etc.), but how about three seconds? Watch the lane lines, and free throw line. The player is either in the lane, or he's out of the lane (even if he's jumped into the air while in the lane, completely airborne, he's still in the lane). No gray. 00:03:00 pass, and it's an automatic whistle?

For me, he's got to be gaining an advantage in there for me to call the violation. 00:04:00, with only the back of one shoe one eighth of an inch on the lane line, everything else out of the lane, not posting up, not looking to receive a pass, not trying to gain an advantage to get an offensive rebound, but just standing ever so slightly on the elbow? By rule, and by Camron Rust's statement, he's in the lane, no gray here. I agree (I can't deny it) that he's in the lane, but is it a violation?

I'm not calling that, and I'm probably not even yelling at him to, "Get out of the lane". Calling it is not going to be my best call of the game, and if I do call it, it could probably be my worst call of the game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If we assume that you can consider adv/dis on violations, isn't it an advantage to the free-thrower if he is allowed to step over the line early?

It is if he runs in to (possibly) get the rebound, or to take a shot from closer than 15'. Just a step (well) after the shot has been released? Not so much.

And, while I could watch for that, I'd rather switch my attention to the rebounding action.

[Jesse James]

For all the "let it slide" guys on the FT violations:

Game I attended a couple years ago--6-9 center repeatedly shot an out of balance jumper as a FT. Violated every time in the first half--worse than the video. State Finals official in the slot ignored all four, to the wrath of the opposing coach. Same kid gets fouled at the horn at the end of the half. Clear the lane, shoot two...same official in C. Shooter violates just as badly, and makes--C opts to whistle both. Home coach up in arms "his other ones counted!" while the opposing coach snarkily wants his earlier four taken off the board. Made for an interesting second half.

Just something to consider.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If we assume that you can consider adv/dis on violations, isn't it an advantage to the free-thrower if he is allowed to step over the line early?

The first time he does it, just step to the shooter and let him know that was a freebie, but from now on is will be penalized.