I think it will be interesting to see if that play is on next season's rules video under "protect the shooter" or "officiate the game; manage situations" or something.

I still see a defender who's running side-by-side with an offensive player and I still see a defender who never jumped into the offensive player or even moved in the offensive player's direction. The defender even ended up landing away from the shooter, not towards the shooter.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Foul occurs at 2.3 when offensive player changes her path (which is her right) and then the defender who is not in LGP causes contact on the side of the offensive player.

I can defend a foul call and I can defend the no call. That makes this a 50-50 play. And on a 50-50 play with a tie score near the buzzer, I'm no calling.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I'm with Arem on this - after watching the play like 70-80 times, the simple question comes down to what took the player to the floor, and it was the contact, and was the contact legal or illegal?

To the point of the no-call, the worst thing that could happen on that its a tie ballgame, you let the players decide it, and you go into OT, which is what they did. . .

Same exact play just happened at 6:56 3Q of the National Championship Game, and it was called a foul.

And again at 5:35 4Q. Also called a foul.

Means absolutely nothing to me or my opinion on the play from the semi-final.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I didn’t suggest that it should.

A 50-50 decision in the 3Q does not carry anywhere close to the same level of scrutiny that a 50-50 decision on the last play of a tied game carries. Like it or not, that's the way it is and that's why this job is an art, not a science.

We can't even reach a consensus on this thread about what happened on the play. That tells me that the Final Four official responsible for making that call or no-call did just fine.

Only because some are basing their decision on time/score considerations.

If presented in a vacuum I'm sure there would be a consensus, or something around 80/20 in favor of foul.

But they didn't let the players decide. They decided based on the no call. If they shoot free throws, miss both, the game goes into OT, then it is decided by the players.

Why is a "no call" letting the players decide the game? The defensive player, IMO, was not in legal guarding position and contacts the shooter in the act. Not calling or calling a foul on that play is making a decision which aids in the result of the game's outcome.

When I first viewed the video I was expecting to see a player get hammered to the floor. The play was nowhere near that. And that the play was far enough away from being an "obvious" foul that in that situation a no-call was the right call.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I know the 2 supervisors I have who do the most video review and the most training of their staffs would want this play no-called.

Add me to the foul column. Defender is not legal and makes contact with an airborne shooter causing her to lose balance and land against the basket support. She did not go down like that on her own. The official did a great job of getting in front of that play and looked to have a great angle, but just didn't make the call.

This is a Slot play IMO, Lead has a "B" look.