Right-handed shooter, left side next to end line. Defender was in front, but swiped with his left hand (away from end line) and hit the outside of the shooter's right elbow as he was elevating.

(BTW, this is the type of discussion new officials trying to get into college ball should be focusing on, not whether an NBA player can dangle from the rim after a time-out)

Did the ball get anywhere near the rim and/or did the shooter's motion have a weird reaction? I agree that it is a tough angle, if the contact is on the outside of the shooter's outside arm toward Trail. However, usually you can infer based on the trajectory of the shot and/or his body's reaction, but Trail would be the only one to actually see the contact, unless Lead gets lucky on the look through.

Amen! Discussions like these build foundations.

Likewise, the shooter with the shooting arm on the baseline side - the lead is probably getting the best, if not the only look.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

After watching the whole video, the Lead did take a peek at the shooter before turning his attention back to the paint.

I wish it was a look instead of a peak...;)

Again the play was not in the half court. The play started hard in the lane where most players were actually located. His mechanics were fine in that situation. I doubt anyone would even say a thing about his "peak" in that situations.

Peace

That's a "problem" with the official, not with the specified coverage. In your play, the official who was the trail *might have been* the L, looked at the play, and decided it wasn't a foul. The official who was the lead *might have been* the trail and now either goes out of his area ("what's he even doing looking there?") or the foul gets missed.

For the love of God, it's peek, not peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sure, unless the flagrant foul was during rebound (or lack of) action -- then in the play presented, no one is looking at the paint and it gets missed.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each coverage mechanic -- the good officials recognize (by instinct, often) when to "cheat" on the coverage ; but all officials need to be on the same page to start the coverage.

Your right....:D

What happened to Slot?

He's working in the NBA. The center, on the other hand....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Baseline or endline?

End line (2 words).

Another NFHS POE this year - professionalism and using proper terminology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, we don't want to confuse anyone....

That's what happens when you speek to text.

Heh heh.

And spelling and grammar? And no fragmented sentences?

Verbs are overrated . .

Someone in the NFHS office has too much time on their hands.

Particularly when they then contradict their own POE.

fify

Right. Amusing how the Pre-Season Guide just 5 pages later (p.14 article) then uses "marginal contact" twice instead of the proper terminology, "incidental contact." :eek:

Buy Me Some Peanuts And Cracker Jack ...
 

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.T...=0&w=300&h=300

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0...=0&w=281&h=188

Who's confused? I know a baseline when I see it.

How does that work with the "up-down-rebound" coverage pattern that officials are instructed to use on shots? If Trail is responsible for the shot (the "up" part), then it stands to reason that he is also responsible for the shooter coming down safely, any contact against him, and rebounding activity. Thus, any look that the lead might have on this play is secondary.

What would you have done as the Lead to officiate both the pass-crash play a few seconds before the 3-point shot, and the F2 foul against the 3-point shooter?

My perspective is coming from working under an NCAA supervisor who preaches the "Lead-Corner Coverage" because of his background. There are several forms of this coverage: NBA = Lead all the way | NCAA = At least open up. If my particular supervisor was breaking down this coverage, he would likely say: LEAD take the shot | TRAIL look into the paint or help LEAD if there is not much action in paint | CENTER/SLOT take the paint. However, every case is different.

If I am in the game in question, this is what I would have likely done. I would be wide as LEAD and anticipate the pass and possible crash, since the offensive team had a player posted in the corner. You have to anticipate plays, not calls. Most of the pass and crashes are no calls because the play has moved to another area at the time of contact. Most of the time, the offensive player does not go "to and through", but this is not always the case. Once I determine that there is nothing on the pass and crash, I would then take the corner 3-point shot, and stay with the shooter UP and DOWN.

If the pass and crash was severe and a call did not come from LEAD, you always have CENTER/SLOT that should be helping with such a critical situation/play.

Just my 2 1/2 cents!

I get all of that, but that is not how it is taught across the country for everyone. This was a hard play to the lane and the pass was after there were all the players in the lane and there was a crash. I get what you might have been taught, but I have never heard a D1 official that works that level put that much emphasis on a corner three in transition when the play originated in the lane. Yes, in the halfcourt you might have a situation where the ball moves to the corner that the officials take a look over there (the ball is potentially coming to the lane or primary of the lead), but this was not a typical situation. Not to say that the official could not have seen some of the play, but he had about 6 or 7 players in the lane. The C might not have the angles for all those players. The Lead does not have their primary outside the 3 point line. The Lead has most of the lane. This would have been at best a secondary coverage call and one where the Trail clearly saw this play. The Trail did not hesitate one bit to make this call. There was even a debate that was had in an association meeting where we were reviewing a play and the college official said that he should not have had a call in the lane in transition (and this was in transition) and it sparked a heavy debate in that meeting. So clearly everyone is not on board with the things you are saying. Good discussion, but it certainly is not something everyone is going with when you say that is how this play should be covered. I am not saying you are wrong, just saying that is not everyone's perspective on this play or how we cover these plays.

Peace

I agree that we are all going to have different perspectives. What I was hoping to accomplish was to move away from critiquing whether it was an F2 Personal or Technical Foul and examine the positioning of the officials in view - mainly LEAD. This is where, IMO, critique needs to happen first before moving into call accuracy. As a result, the discussion illuminated different perspectives on coverage. It naturally occurs given the varying backgrounds of conference supervisors - past NCAA or NBA officials - and how they teach their officials.

Great discussion!