|
Video Request - WVU @ Kansas
4:59 remaining in the second half. Azubuike “pushed” to the ground by WVU player.
4:34 remaining in the second half. Should there have been basket interference called on this play?? Discuss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
lane violation
Rut, could you also let the play run to show the FTs after the foul? I'm curious about the repeated lane violations by Ozubke (sp?). Do the DI assignors expect "marginal" lane violations by the shooter to be ignored, even repeated violations?
|
Quote:
Full disclosure: My mother graduated from KU in 1942 and I was born in Kansas and have been a diehard KU fan all of my life. 4:59 of 2nd Half: In my humble opinion G1 should have been called for a CF about two Hand Checks earlier. 4:34 of 2nd Half: Yes, that was Offensive Basket Interference. MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
1) Foul
2) Do not call the violation 3) Block 4) BI -- shoot two FTs |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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" |
Advantage/Disadvantage ...
Quote:
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. |
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
|
Quote:
|
Twice On Sundays ...
Quote:
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 ...". https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.J...=0&w=300&h=300 |
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.
|
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15pm. |