D3 Player Takes Cheap Shot
 

Anybody see this? No place for this anywhere...maybe WWE....

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/11/fit...player-college

Just saw this myself. Yikes

College Basketball Player Viciously Elbows Opponent in Face During Disgusting Play | TMZ.com

The above link has the video.



http://images.tmz.com/2013/11/20/upd...y-gray-bar.jpg
This could be the dirtiest play in sports history ... a scumbag college basketball player straight-up elbowing an opponent in the FACE after shooting a 3-pointer ... and the video will piss you off.
This all went down on Tuesday night ... when Division III teams Fitchburg State and Nichols were playing in Massachusetts.
The guy who throws the 'bow is Fitchburg junior guard Kewan Platt ... ironically enough, he's a criminal justice major.
The man on the receiving end of the punch is Nichols guard Nate Tenaglia.
People are RAGING about the video on social media ... and Michael Rapaport is calling for Platt to be arrested.
Platt was called for a flagrant foul ... and Fitchburg ended up losing the game.
We've reached out to Fitchburg State, Nichols and the Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Commission for comment ... so far, no word back.
Originally Published -- 9:42 AM PST

UPDATE:

==================================

10:07 AM PT -- Fitchburg State has suspended Platt and barred him from campus for an unspecified amount of time.
"The Fitchburg State community is appalled by the conduct displayed during Tuesday night’s home basketball game."
"His behavior is antithetical to our community values and good sportsmanship. Fitchburg State does not tolerate behavior that violates those standards. The case is being reviewed at the student conduct level for consideration of further sanctions."
9:57 AM PT -- We spoke with the athletic director at Nichols College ... who says Tenaglia was able to return to the game and is doing fine ... and says the Fitchburg State athletic director called him to apologize for the incident and will hand down punishment accordingly.

The second worst thing
 

Besides the elbow itself is that the kid looked at the L to see if he was watching the shooter (i.e., if the coast was clear to throw the elbow). Guess he forgot it was a 3-man crew (and good job by the T staying with the shooter).

Protect The Shooter ...
 

Reminder to all of us still officiating in the Pleistocene Epoch with two person crews to stay with shooter as the lead on this corner three point shot attempt.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...921ce9dfb6.jpg

Vicious
 

This has gone viral and is all over the web. As noted in another post, the player was suspended and banned from campus. I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg and there's more to come.

He apparently forgot that there were cameras too. SMH.

Wish more video was available. Probably is if one digs. I am curious as to why that player did that. What would provoke such an incident? Did the offended player make some previous threat or perform a dirty play that went unnoticed? It had to have been something. No one does that without a reason. Not saying it would be a valid reason, just saying that something triggered him.

As an official, this is a F2. I think T caught it late because of the way he reacted. Wish he had seen it more clearly. But the result was proper.

As a non-official.....that’s felony aggravated assault and should be charged as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flagrant technical.

The police should've been called. Just cause it happened during a game doesn't mean he shouldn't have been arrested for battery.

Longer footage is widely available on the web, which might bring up issues regarding either 1) the difference between NFHS and NCAA-M signaling and subsequent upgrading of the foul to a flagrant (NFHS) or flagrant 2 (NCAA-M), or 2) whether or not the covering official, having turned his head toward the flight of the ball, saw the actual foul or reacted only to the outcome of the foul.
We're grateful he made the call which ultimately led to the correct adjudication. I'm only analyzing mechanically, and not purely critically.

I actually have this occurring while the ball is live, thus a flagrant personal (NFHS) or F2 personal (NCAA). Not that it “really” matters, but still.

The shot wasn't contested. I'd expect the trail to move his eyes towards rebounding action. Good thing he picked up the kid with a brick in his hand and covered the play.

Crew did its job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

It's close. Looks like the ball is 3/4 through the net when the foul occurs. So technically.....

Without replay, I'm likely going T.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

This falls within the realm of fighting. Flagrant 3.

ESPN reported:

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...ay-bars-campus

I get that. I doubt anyone would be too concerned about the personal/technical aspect of this foul as long as it was picked up.

The only difference between F2 personal vs. technical in this situation would be the throw-in spot; since the shooter went out with an injury on a flagrant foul, anyone would be able to shoot the free throws if personal was ruled.

The shooter / victim shot the FT.

Looks like simply a flagrant 2 according to the box score / play by play.

Clear case of OOO

he was no longer an air born shooter, i got incidental contact, play on

As you said, not a valid reason, but he appeared to be fouled by the kid he assaulted, on an airball 3-pt attempt just prior. I had to replay the video several times and stop it, but if you do that, it looks like contact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWcrJ18yjok

Ok, you win the internet today! :p

Interesting, I thought it said he went out of the game for concussion protocol.

Ok, I’m glad you brought this up and that we have the preceding possession clipped now. This is worth discussing from a mechanics and game management standpoint. I’m not excusing the criminal (that’s what I’m going to call him), but let’s look at what the C on the preceding possession could have done better. The criminal is above the C, and C has an open low look between him and the defender. Then the criminal dribbles low and straightlines the C, who at this point in the game had apparently checked out because he made no effort to improve his view. He should have opened high to get a look between the players (but instead he was planted like a tree). All the more so because L was rotating his way, but even if not, C has GOT to make that adjustment. ESPECIALLY since the criminal had been T’d earlier in the game and was probably already a GFU. By not seeing the foul on the 3-try, the criminal’s fire was fueled, and we all saw the result.

Important to officiate the last five minutes with the same effort as the first five, especially with a GFU on the court. Keep working for open looks until the final horn.

Preventative officiating could have...well...prevented this. Lesson learned for all of us.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is only an F2 foul in college (which the level of the game that took place) or a Flagrant Foul in HS. It matters where we put the ball or who shoots the FTs. You cannot have a live ball contact Technical. I think if we call anything else we are just making up our own rules.

Peace

The ball is close enough to being dead that I'd hardly have an issue with an F2 technical foul. Yes I think F2 personal is the correct ruling, but F2 technical would hardly be an egregious error.

Close?? The only way I am calling that is if I have a monitor. While the game is going on I would call this or consider this a live play or action.

Peace

Great, and Rich said without replay he'd have an F2 technical. The ball is closer than you seem to think to being dead (it's already in the net when the contact occurs).

Two respected posters, two different opinions.

I'm just saying, we were told without monitors we have to be completely right. We cannot guess or speculate, we have to know. And likely we would have to have 2 officials verify that took place as well. I am just saying this from a self-preservation standpoint. And most of the plays are not this hard to officiate. Even the Hook and Hold plays are not this complicated as to what makes it a Flagrant Foul.

And the ball has to be completely through the net to be dead, not just in the net. If there is any doubt, I am considering the ball live. Just like I would with other similar fouls where a common foul or a dead ball contact foul would be at issue.

Peace

I didn't say the ball was dead, I said it was close enough to being dead that ruling a technical rather than personal foul would not be something to lose sleep over.

I have stated more than once that this is an F2PF for me.

You have to speak for yourself on this one. I would be worried about this if it was not supported by the video. I want to beat the tape anytime I can. But this might very for who you work with or the coaches you encounter. I do not want to call something that I cannot completely support.

Peace

If you are sure, fine. But what if it went the other way and the ball was completely through the net when the foul happened and you called a flagrant 2? You'd be just as wrong, just the other way.

The T has a guy get coldcocked in the corner - I'd hope any supervisor would focus on the important issue - that the player was ejected.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Are you naive enough to think the average coach knows the rules well enough to know whether this play is an F2PF or F2TF?

The offender was ejected and the offended team got two FTs and the ball-that is the only thing that a coach would care about.

Coaches complain about things that happen in games whether they know the rule or not. That was not the baseline of my position where I believe this is about what a coach knows. My point is that coaches often complain about things they "think" they know and if that little part influenced the game, they might complain. A dead ball technical in Men's college is 2 shots and the ball automatically.

Coaches can be very petty, even at the college level. So you say that is all they care about, but I have seen coaches complain just because they do not like a particular coach. That is where the supervisor comes in to make sanity out of a situation, but they might care. And a supervisor might care more. So to say it does not matter is not really true.

Peace

Just as wrong? How do we know that the ball was completely through the basket? Did you have to stop the video several times to make sure? That is the thing we could do if we had replay. In this game there likely is no replay. And yes that matters.

I hope a lot of things, but that does not mean it will take place that way.

I am not disagreeing with you if it is obvious, but it is not at all obvious. Meaning I have to look at the video very closely and even slow it down to know if that is what actually took place. A Flagrant Foul is a definite in this situation. But if you make it a T because you say it is a dead ball is not so much. Because as stated before, the coach might try everything to undermine your call.

Peace

Get your point Jrut, not arguing.

I do not think any of the 3 officials could tell you if the ball was dead or not at the time of the foul. L turns and watches the paint so he can't see when the foul occurs. C is likely watching rebounders and their action and he too would not know when the foul occurred. The T called the foul and knows when it happened. He also acknowledged the made 3 so he knows when that happened but he does not know which took place first. This would be a case where general basketball play would help. Generally speaking, 3-point shooters are fouled before the ball passes through the net. When was the last time you saw this not happen? So, given this and no monitor, it would be a safe and practical ruling to say the ball was live at the time of the foul.

As others have said, the focus will be on the injured player, the offender, calming the coaches/benches, etc. not splitting hairs on whether the ball was completely through the net or not.

This is a discussion board. This is kind of the point of this site to hash out the details of a situation. You do not have to tell me you are not arguing on a play that has elements of the play.

All interesting discussion points. But that is not my point if this was for me. At the very least this is not the actual coach's tape. It might be a version of that, so we are speculating on what the officials were looking at completely or even what seemed to happen. But something tells me that a T was not likely called in this situation.

I am not talking about what people are focused on during the game. During the game, they might not care. But you also do not know what happened in this game before. There are coaches that will justify all kinds of things in a game and will justify it by picking at what you called. And I am mostly talking about after the game is over. There tends to be more conversation with supervisors about plays in college because of the stakes. All I was saying and still saying, it better show up on tape. If you are going to call a T, it better not be because you "think" the ball went through, you better be right. The only reason to call a T is that the ball is dead. I'm just saying be sure.

Peace

A contact dead ball technical is two shots and possession, and that's not really relevant to this situation.

This is either a flagrant 2 personal or technical, and it's two shots and possession regardless of whichever is ruled. What I am surprised by is that the offended player shot the FTs; I thought trainers had come out on the floor to check on him, which would have mandated a sub unless a TO was granted.

It's highly unlikely, in this instance, that any coach is going to throw a fit because the ball was thrown in at the 28-foot line rather than the division line, or vice-versa. Especially at the D3 level where the majority of coaches have less-than-stellar rules knowledge. Heck there are plenty of officials that can't even tell you the difference between F2 personal and technical fouls; you mean to tell me the average coach would be able to?

I am going to keep saying this until it sinks in. I do not care what the coach ultimately thinks. But if the coach says something to the supervisor, that person might actually care how you administered the rule. The supervisor might care if you actually called something that does not show up on tape. The supervisor actually might care who made the call an why. The coach just might be the person that bitches initially about the situation which would not be just about this play. I bet if you did not call something earlier in the game that might be something that gets sent to the supervisor for review. I would also as a crew or Referee have to give a report to the supervisor as to what happened. And depending on the level, this might have to be filed to the National Organization (NAIA and JUCO require ejection reports filed to them directly). Forgive me, I like to be right when those things take place and those reports. This is not high school where maybe the assignor even cares or even the state cares little about this or never contacts you about the report you file. I do not like to administer things that did not happen or did not follow the rule just because, "No one will notice" at the college level particularly. And this is not a slam dunk dead ball situation, which I would rather not rule on without being sure. I had to slow it down to even have a debate in the first place. I do not give a flying farfonickle what the darn coach does in this situation ultimately during or after the game. But my conversation after the game is not going to be with the coach. It will be with my supervisor on some level and not all supervisors just say, "I really do not care because you threw out the kid..." type of people.

Peace

Either it's a live ball foul or a dead ball foul. You're either right or wrong. But you seem to be saying it's worse to call this a dead ball foul and be wrong than vice versa.

That makes no sense at all.

Rignt is right, wrong is wrong, and without a monitor nobody has the exact timing on this. It's a best guess from this crew, one which appears to be correct.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

JRut, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. No one disputed that getting the adjudication right should be a priority.

My point has been, and still is, that this ball is close enough to being dead (it's in the freaking net when the hit occurs, not sure why you can't grasp that) that no supervisor worth his salt is going to harp on whether this is ruled a personal or technical foul. They are going to focus on the important issue: that the offender was ejected from the game. There are assigners that probably don't even know what the technically correct administration is on this play.

Yes, the ball is live. Yes, the correct ruling is an F2 personal foul. And it looks like they administered it as such. No one is disputing that you (and I) are correct in our ruling. We are only saying that it is close enough that, as long as the offender is ejected and the offended team gets 2 shots and the ball, it is petty to focus on whether the throw-in was technically at the right spot or not.

I am not actually making anything out of this. You are the one trying to convince me of your process. You can do what you like. I personally do not care. Just telling you what I would do (based only on the very limited information we have in this video). And it is not like we work for the same people that tell us how to handle situations without monitors. I thought you did not even do Men's college?

I do not think you can grasp what I said. I was not asking how close it was. I was asking to be sure. BTW, there is a better view of the play online by an official that puts out good content. Not the cropped view. I even said I would like to see the entire play. And the play in question might not be as clear live. Remember, they have no monitor (very unlikely). This might actually be only one official that sees the picture here in real time. We did not even know if the official saw the play and not only did he see it, he clearly was calling the Flagrant Foul at the spot. You are judging this by watching a video and likely slowing it down or seeing it over and over again. That official had one shot and it is not even clear if the C saw the play or had a different picture or information.

You keep talking about what coaches think, but do not see I do not give a damn about what any coach thinks in this conversation. I made that rather clear if you were paying attention.

Peace

Time to give up. He's not going to hear either one of us. No reason to be surprised, either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I hear you, I do not agree with you. It is that simple. No need to complicate this. ;)

Peace

The last word is a precious commodity to some...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never did get an answer to my question, either:

Is it somehow better to be wrong calling it a live ball F2 if it's really a dead ball (and therefore should've been a flagrant technical) than if you get it wrong in the other direction (call it a dead ball flagrant TF when it should've been a live ball F2)?

Oh, well. Sucked into the vortex, like always.

If the shot was already successful when the flagrant foul happened, then it would be a flagrant 2 technical foul, the ball would be put in play at the division line after 2 free throws by ANY player.
If the shot was not yet successful at the time of the flagrant foul, then it would be a flagrant 2 personal foul, the ball would be put in play at the nearest designated spot (the nearest spot to the corner is the 28' mark on that side) following 2 free throws by THE VICTIM of the flagrant foul.
In either case, the offender would be ejected from the game, but it is important to be clear on what type of foul happened, because it affects further administration of the game. If I was on the crew, I would send the players to the benches, talk to the T before he reports the foul (unless I am the T, in which case I would call the other officials together and tell them that I have a flagrant 2 foul on White 23, and that he will be ejected from the game. I would ask L and C if the foul was before or after the ball entered the basket, and finally contribute my input. Then, we would decide how to adjudicate the play), and then decide whether the ball entered the basket before or after the foul as a crew. Then, we would adjudicate the play appropriately.

I would call this a flagrant 2 technical foul, because the official had time to signal the successful shot before he called the foul (i.e. the ball had entered the basket before the foul was committed).

Entering the basket does not make the ball dead.

The ball entering the basket and remaining in or passing through the basket ends the try for goal. Since the player was fouled after the shot was successfully completed, the ball would be remain dead (the ball is dead after a player scores and until the ball is at the disposal of a player from the team scored upon for the subsequent throw-in), and the resulting foul would be a technical foul.

Not what you said the first time.

And you won't because he doesn't have an answer.

Shocking.

I must not be able to grasp your point because there isn't one. Or maybe because I don't work as many low-level college games as you.

Oh well. :rolleyes:

I love I do not have a point, but your vast and extensive knowledge is trying to convince me of your point of view I never hear from officials and supervisors that either work that level ever or assign games at that level.

That tells me I will keep doing exactly what I am doing. It must be working.

"Beat the tape." This is my mantra and the thing that keeps me out of trouble.

I had a coach today that wanted me to not to be "sarcastic" with his player after his player asked a question and I explained to the player why a foul was not called. The player did not box out and got out jumped and the little contact that took place he was complaining about a foul that 3 of us passed on. That coach acted like I was being sarcastic when I answered a direct question with a direct answer. Now if I did not answer the question or talk to his player, that would have been a problem too.

Now if this situation took place with this coach I just referenced, I am convinced he would make an issue out of what kind of call you made and what rule you applied as he was making issues out of other things in this game I am mentioning that took place tonight. Maybe where you guys work, no one cares about those things. But where I work, the little things coaches can get a bug up their behind and try to get you to look bad even when you are totally correct. That is why it matters to me if it is clearly a dead ball or just about to be a dead ball. Since we have no monitor, I would not want to give them any ammo. I have been doing college ball long enough to hear the things coaches complain to supervisors about and often they are petty in nature. But hey, I have no point right? :D

Peace

Happened to me once. I said, “Coach, I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was being sardonic.”

It was semantically correct. Better yet, it blew his mind just long enough for me to escape the confrontation unscathed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He probably did not even remember the word you used. :D

Peace

My point has nothing to do with not "beating the tape," but I'm not surprised you are incapable or unwilling to comprehend that. You don't have a valid response to my argument so you bring in stuff that was never the issue to begin with. No one on this thread has suggested that it is not important to "beat the tape"; that is something you made up.

Par for the course, I reckon.

I simply do not agree with your position. It is OK to accept that your position means nothing to me. I do not work for you. I do not have to work with you. I do not have to answer to you (about anything). So if you feel you should call something because in your mind, "They are only worried about the player that is hurt..." BS, then go with that one. I have experienced coaches caring about a lot of things that we think would not be obvious. I am good with my position. You will eventually get over it!!! (Well maybe not)

Peace

Your God complex is showing. :rolleyes:

Another red herring from Rut. Guess I will never learn.

Can someone recap the 2 sides of this debate so I can decide which side I'm on? I've lost track of what this discussion is about.

God complex? :rolleyes::p:)

Did I not say that I work for someone that would not agree with you? If I was God, then why would I not just do whatever the hell I wanted to do regardless of what others say (you are not in that equation BTW)? Yes. I feel that we should do what is expected by the people we work for. Again, you do not work Men's college ball, do you? If I was God I would remember this fact, but I honestly do not care but find it odd that someone that does not even work Men's college ball knows so much about what should be done at a level they do not work.

Do you work for anyone that is a D1 official as your supervisor? Well, I do. Actually, I work for 2 people that fit that description. And that means that they know what having a monitor does to the game and they realize that they have officials that never will get a chance to look at a monitor. That means that you cannot just say, "Well no one will care because...." when the damn play might only be seen clearly with a monitor. Because the only thing that even makes it clear that the ball is live or dead is if you see this on replay. If you see it live, it is very possible that element (very important one) is not clear or even obvious. But hey, you know right. I am saying that this is a tough play and for some reason I have a God complex because I suggest that we go with what we can prove at the time of the play, not on replay. Last time I checked the two people advocating what to do in this situation, do not even work the level they are discussing. Isn't that what you say to a certain person that always has something to say about varsity basketball? Why is this different?

Again, do you even work this level of ball? Because when I am in pre-game meetings with partners that work high levels of ball than me, it is funny how they say the very same things I am saying here. Beat the damn tape. They do not care what just happened to the player, they care about what they can prove.

Peace

OK, as officials, we are supposed to have thick skin, but let's keep the argument civil and focused on the issues. There is enough animosity in the world.

Rich said that he would rule a F2 technical.

I replied and said I would rule a F2 personal since that ball was not entirely through the net, but I acknowledged that it was very close and at the end of the day wouldn't be a huge deal (since the penalty is the same except for potentially the shooter and the throw-in spot).

Rich also acknowledged that it was very close and without a monitor he would understand why officials may error on the personal/technical aspect of this play.

JRut then went on a tangent and said that the ball wasn't even close to being dead and basically implied that it would be the end of the world if you ruled an F2TF on this instead of an F2PF. Said coaches would complain and you have to "beat the tape" which no one disputed, but not really relevant to the discussion. I responded that many officials don't even understand the difference between the two fouls, what makes you think the average coach would know? As long as the player is ejected and the offended team gets two FTs and the ball, no one will lose sleep. He implied that it is worse to rule the ball dead when it is actually live than vice-versa, then when asked to defend his point he didn't. Then he implied I didn't care about "beating the tape" and spilled off his resume, again not even addressing the irrelevance/illogicality of his points.

You work low-level college basketball. I've had a D1 supervisor before as well. You're not special. Get over yourself.

There is no animosity.

Rut brought red herrings into the discussion, then when asked to defend his points he couldn't and doubled down.

Writing a novel doesn't make you smart.

I don’t work college basketball. But based on my desire for humility and some sage advice offered on this forum last year, if I ever do work college, I will refuse to offer that fact when offering any opinions about officiating. To do otherwise is fruitless showboating.

It is one thing to clarify the rules set in question. That’s perfectly ok. But “I’m a college...” and “My college assignor says...”. are not helpful additions to any officiating discussion.

My 2¢.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Working college doesn't tell me much about an official, especially lower-level college. There are many "college officials" that don't qualify themselves by stating what levels/how many games they work, and there are many that are hired for reasons other than pure ability. I know more than one NAIA/JUCO/D3 official that I wouldn't want to work a high-level HS boys game with.

Mentioning that you're a "college official" when irrelevant is nothing more than big-timing.

It feels like we're having two separate debates here.



https://chronicallyirritated.files.w...-jpg.gif?w=510

I said the ball was not clearly dead and probably would only be determined by looking a the replay (which they did not have) or clearly seeing this live. And yes you have to beat the tape if you are calling something based off of something you did not see live. Just like "hook and hold" plays, you have to be right.

I also disagree with the premise of what a coach might not say. That is you projecting to know what coaches will or will not do at this or all levels.

And if you saw the coach's tape that showed a situation right before this foul called on the play, it is possible a coach would care that you did not take care of something before this happened. There was a situation with these two players right before the incident that is posted. The coach might have felt that the officials handled the entire situation poorly and this is why this happened. There might be more plays where things were not handled correctly by the officials in the coach's opinion. It would not be the first time that

I also did not say a thing about my resume'. I did not say what level I worked or what level I did not work. I do work college ball, but that is very general and very not specific. Even that matters little if you live in certain areas because not everyone can work all levels of college unless they want to go 5 hours one way for a game. I did give a story of the level of the game I referenced I worked yesterday illustrating how petty coaches can be even when you are doing the right thing. I said you keep talking about a level you have said you did not work in the past. That means that you may not be aware of what is asked of officials at this level. We are not talking about high school basketball where the details might not matter, because the basketball coach is likely the math teacher too. A college coach is living for every moment in the game because he or she might not live in that community next year if they do not win or recruit the right kids. This kid on the team could be a reflection of the coach too. So yes, they might care if some guy does not enforce the rules properly even if it is close. Honestly, I was not speaking to you when I said this, I was speaking to those that want to work these games and think "No one will care" and they will quickly show you how much they care or it might matter to you personally.

Heck, tonight is our season start, better not say that it is my 23rd year of basketball officiating and working a tournament. God Forbid that people talk about those things when talking about what happens with us personally because people like you will think that is talking about your resume'. :D

Peace

Then never go to anyone's camp. Never listen to them about anything they tell you to do at that camp. Never listen to a supervisor that tells you what they will do if the coach calls you. It will never help you or anyone because every single camp I have ever attended at any level, the people are telling you what they do or what has happened to them in their career or their positions. And they definitely are going to say things when the game is at the very level they are directly involved with. Heck, not sure why people on this site if they only want to talk about the level they know. ;)

Peace

Is often relevant when discussing rules/plays from college games. I do have a college supervisor who sent out an email about this play and told us exactly how it wants it handled and what he wants included in the game report. He is also a supervisor who will tell us that he doesn't care what our philosophies and thoughts are once he chimes in on a subject.

I said it was a flagrant technical based on one viewing of the film.

In retrospect, after watching the replay, I said I was wrong -- that the ball had not completely cleared the net and it was still a live ball.

But had the ball completely checked the net, it would've been a flagrant technical and calling it an F2 would've been incorrect.

The thing I'm questioning about Jeff's posts is this -- he seemed to say that calling it a live ball foul and being incorrect is somehow better than calling it a dead ball flagrant technical and being wrong. My point is.....wrong is wrong. What's the difference?

As someone who worked enough "low level college games" over the years to tell me I 100% completely hated everything about it, let me just say that you folks that do those games are more than welcome to them.

I love my low-level college games. I get paid at least 3 times as much as my HS games and the majority of those games are within a 90 minute drive for me.

Certainly depends a lot on where you live.

When I was working those games the closest school was an hour away, the rest were at least two. The longest trip was over five hours.

Leaving work early to work bad basketball, dress in a storage closet in the middle of BFE, and ref in front of empty crowds wasn't worth it.

Ah, the benefit of east coast campus density.

Things are not quite as cost effective in Wisconsin and Kansas. Similar pay but a lot more mileage and late night drives.

I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. I just don’t want aspiring officials north and west of the Ohio River to get a false sense of JUCO and D3 profitability.

Then again those $55 high school games in Wisconsin make a 300 mile round trip for a D3 game in January look not so bad...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Raymond, solely out of curiosity, what was your supervisor's take on the play?

He wants the play ruled a "fight". A fight by definition is a Flagrant 2 Technical.

Fight Club (1999) ...
 

I don't know much about NCAA rules but it certainly fits the definition of an NFHS fight: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

And you know what? I didn't consider that, but I agree with him.

Note - we have very little small college stuff here and almost all those that do it are driving huge distances routinely - up to 4 hours one way. I used to do 6-10 JuCo games every year, but those game paid barely more than HS games and were terrible to work.

That is not exactly what I said. You put a lot of stuff into my comments.

Let me make this clear. Lower level college basketball often does not have a monitor. Lower level college does not have rules different than D1, but there is an expectation to call the exact same things as they do at that level. When you do not call things like the D1, coaches can and will go nuts, even when you do not have a monitor. So if you rule something like a Flagrant Technical and it is not "there" they might make an issue out of that. College coaches can be pettier than high school coaches. And at least for me, college coaches do not know you as well as high school coaches, you cannot just tell them anything.

It is better than working many college football games and being there all day for less pay in some cases. At least I am at a game less than a couple of hours and it is warm inside. So to each his own. ;)

Peace

We have some longer drives than that, but I would rather go 3 hours to be paid way more than a high school game I get paid only $70 for. And one conference I work gives travel pay too. ;)

Peace

Good points and I think maybe someone mentioned fighting early in this discussion.;)

Can We Talk About the Lead?
 

I didn't scan through the last 6 pages to see if anyone mentioned the Lead's position, but this is a perfect example why you must work hard to get "outside-in" position. The Lead is closed off and tunnel visioned. I have an assignor who wouldn't raise h*** over whether its a F2 Personal or Technical Foul, but he would target the Lead on his position.

Especially, since this video shows the Trail watching the flight of the ball, it's a perfect example to show why Lead must open up on those corner shots! Thank God Trail had enough courage to trust his gut because Lead was no help!

Lead was watching what he was supposed to, the matchups in his PCA on his side of the post. Maybe he might have seen the offender, White 23 dashing to the corner, and then open up while keeping his PCA matchups in view, but Trail officiated the play correctly. Successful 3, Flagrant 2, 2 free throws and possession to A.

I think we need to see the actual coach's video here. If you saw the play broken down, the Lead has like 8 players in the lane. He cannot concentrate that hard on 2 players which the Trail should be doing nothing but looking at that shot attempt. There is even a crash in the lane on a pass that led to the shot attempt.

Well here is the play for better understanding.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/etif6YGkapk?start=29" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not to derail thread. This is bad and I think it was handled as well as an unexpected play like this can be by the crew.

The kid deserves whatever punishment he gets.

On an quasi related note: I'm seeing all this stuff out there about dirtiest play ever, worst flagrant foul, assault etc. Not to be the get off my lawn old guy but is this a case of millenial social media and immediacy bias pretending the Jordan rules weren't a thing, that Karl Malone didn't give Isiah Thomas 40 stitches minutes in the 1st quarter of a regular season game, that anything that didn't happen after 2000 didn't really happen???

Laetner just had a documentary made about him stomping on a guy for goodness sake.

Is this bad? Heck yeah. Could we not act like throughout the history of basketball a guy hitting a shooter with a dirty elbow is the worst thing that has ever happened.

Of course, we live in the era of hyperbole. But this is up there. And it isn't just a "dirty elbow." This isn't a heat of moment thing. This is a player coming out after the play is over, looking at the (wrong) ref to see he isn't looking, and throwing a pre-meditated elbow into a face. There was no instigation (in the immediate term) from the victim. Pre-meditated, brutal fouls that aren't connected to the game (the Jordan rules were about fouling the guy with the ball) are awfully rare.

The Lead has better looks at corner shots than Trail. I believe this has been an NCAA Women's mechanic (Lead takes plays below FTL extended) for some time. The assignor who has instilled this coverage mechanic throughout some of my conferences was an NBA official. At first, I thought it was just a nonsense mechanic coming down from the top. However, when you start implementing this coverage mechanic, those plays become easier to officiate.

I'm not saying Trail didn't have a great look, but bringing these points up from a position standpoint.

Jordan rules might have been about fouling the guy with the ball but it wasn't about making a basketball play. Malone and McHale might have clotheslined guys or throw elbows at guys going up for a layup but I don't think that just because it was in the middle of a basketball play as opposed to when one has just ended changes the brutality or the intent.

All of those as premeditated and brutal (by todays standards). In 2013 Beverly ended Westbrook's season by taking out his knees as a timeout was being called. Was he making a basketball play? More so than this guy but not much and the purpose was the same. Physical intimidation and attempt to injure.

Sorry. Go back to your regular useful discussion on this topic.

Thanks for posting that video... I never knew this resource was available.

I disagree. The Trail is all over this. Sees the entire play and properly calls a Flagrant Foul on the spot. Does not need help to make the call at least at the spot. Men's Mechanics does not extend coverage to the sideline (and properly so IMO). This is in the lead's coverage area. The Lead can help, but he had a lot going on in the lane and if he not watch the lane, he probably is surprised by the crash that took place before for the shot attempt (good no call).

I would assume that if you are working college, it did not come from one person, it came from the CCA committee. I work for a guy that is on the Men's CCA Committee and they do very different things than the NBA.

Peace

He has some really awesome stuff. I used his videos often for presentations and meetings.

Peace

In NCAA-Men's mechanics, the Lead is supposed to open up to 3-point shooters in the corner, which means getting wide when the ball goes to the corner. His initial positioning was not good, IMO. He can still see the post while staying wide and stealing a peek at the shooter. By the time the contact occurred he was correctly concentrating on the rebounding action in the paint though.

I've been doing it for years in my low-level (and occasionally higher level) college games.

Corner 3's - Lead must look. Whether he is the only one or not, he must help out. Say Trail didn't have a whistle on this play because he was ball watching, who could have stepped in and saved the day? Lead.

As for your last paragraph, I didn't understand. The assignor for the Big South and Conference Carolina's has instilled this coverage area in his staff - Lead take the corner 3, Trail look in the lane, along with Slot.

I am going to disagree with the "must look" position. He could have opened up to the shooter better, but he also has 8 players in the lane. The play went hard to the paint and then the pass was thrown to the corner. This was not a half-court set play, this was in transition.

There is as mechanics book that is approved by the NCAA and referenced in the NCAA literature and videos. I cannot speak for what one assignor says to his staff or does not say to his staff. And unless this game was in his conference, then what he might teach or expect might be a little different. But as it relates to what the CCA actually puts out, I am not seeing this play in particular as a play the lead needs to be so focused on the shot in this case. I work for a guy that is actually on the CCA Committee as the D3 Representative. He preaches what is approved in the book to his staff that works everything from D2, D3, NAIA, and JUCO Men's basketball. That is not the primary of the lead. It has never been in CCA Men's Mechanics. Opening up and seeing that play are not the same things IMO.

Peace

I must admit. I have barely looked at the CCA Manual. I think the different viewpoints on this coverage area illuminates the different officiating tracks (not sure if I am using the right words to describe my point). NCAA officials who work for assignors who only worked in the NCAA themselves are probably not going to learn this coverage area. Whereas, those who work for an assignor who spent time in the NBA, or was at least influenced by the NBA, will probably learn this coverage area regardless of whether it is adopted by the CCA or not.

Actually, the lead was NOT in proper position. The L should mirror the ball and should have moved out as far as the 3-point arc. Even if the L is focused on the post area, being wide in a mirroring position puts this play in his peripheral vision. Where he was, he had no chance to pick it up....that is one of the reasons why we mirror the ball.

Many of us are fully aware of what the NBA does and does not do. But that has nothing to do with these mechanics that are used at the college level that are advocated or even put in the CCA book. All levels do some of the same things. And this is not about the assignors you work for or don't work for. Assignors do not set the mechanics for the entire level. Again this game was not likely in the league you referenced.

I agree that normally the lead should be more open on this play, but he had reasonable responsibilities in the lane. It is not like he was simply ignoring something, he had things in his primary and the lead has a lot of primary responsibility in the lane. It is even the philosophy to defer to the lead on those plays.

Peace

That's NBA and NCAA-W's coverage. I work Pro-Am every summer for 2 NBA officials and it's the coverage that NCAA-M's and HS officials have to adjust to when working for them.

I know. I love it. You would think the NCAA-M would recognize that they are the "odd man out".

NBA is a different game. In he NBA, once the ball hits that corner a shot is going up. In NCAA and HS the ball may whip around a couple times or will get dumped down to a post player. And I'm pretty good with geometry, and I don't believe the Trail can better see secondary defenders and the RA than the Lead can. I like the NCAA-M's mechanic of the Lead mirroring the ball and opening up to help in the corner but maintaining primary coverage of the post. The NBA also allows a lot of contact in the post that NCAA and NFHS officials are supposed to clean up. Only official who has an angle to see in between the defender and offensive player in the post, especially on initial setup, is the Lead. Additionally, at the NCAA and HS levels, we have infinitely more backcourt pressure, so the Lead is often the only official available to monitor the post for the first 8-10 seconds of a possession. In the NBA, the Trail pretty much can ignore the ball-handler bringing the ball up the court and immediately set their sights on the post area.

True. The spread is different. However, a drive with a secondary defender is another scenario. The ball won't be in the corner. I am speaking from a shot in the corner standpoint on Lead getting wide and taking a look at the shot. Same situation with a double team in the corner. Get wide and look.

Last year, I had a game where if the Lead had not opened up and taken a look on a 3 point shot in the corner, we would have missed a foul during the critical point in the game (under 4 minutes). The Trail was looking right at it, but didn't think it was a foul, yet it was clearly a foul.

Here's another thing about 3-pointers in the corner. The foul is either going to come from directly in front of the shooter or from the side of the court away from the Lead, it's never going to come from the side closer to the sideline.

I worked a college game last week that I'm still watching on Synergy, and I had a foul on a 3-point shooter in the corner where he got hit on the side of his right elbow, which the Lead would have had no way of seeing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Was the contact on the front of the elbow with the defensive player coming toward the offensive player or on the right side of the elbow with the defensive player going from Trail to Lead?