Vid Request: Gonzaga vs SF - reaching out of your area
 

Since we have been discussing this lately...

With 4:20 left in the first half, the T official calls a foul on a player in the opposite side of the lane near the low post. Announcers repeatedly made the distance of the call a factor. I heard announcer indicate foul was on #1. I found it interesting that the T signaled, in a way, two hands down low, like to the body, when the defender, #1 was near vertical, with his hands held high. C appeared to be staring at the action and had nothing. L (Harris I think) probably had too many bodies in front of him. It was a bit of a cluster.

It is about angles. He might have saw something and I have little issues with it. But to me again this is not the play we were talking about earlier. It is in the lane.

I will post the video later tonight.

Peace

Here is the play (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xsTzg90CqUE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

The L is correctly positioned for the initial try. The problem occurs when the rebound goes to opposite side of the basket and another attempt takes place from there. I believe that both the L and C are straight-lined on the second attempt. Not much the L could do about this, but if the C had moved up and stepped into the court, he would have had a better view.
I cannot tell on the video if there was a foul or not, but it is clear to me that the T, who had the whistle, is the only one with an open look. Lastly, the T was actually below the top of the 3pt arc when he made the call, not way away.

I agree. The T is the only one with a view through the play.

The defender's feet did move forward thought the 2nd shot. For the reasons you describe regarding the C, we also don't have a view through the play and just cant see if there was enough contact for a foul or not.

This is a perfect example of the video not being conclusive. The video not showing an obvious foul here is certainly not sufficient to say there wasn't one.