New Mexico St v Auburn vid request

[Nevadaref]

Second half 3:00 left

Blocking foul on the primary defender or charge with the secondary defender?

[JRutledge]

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Charge -- if that defender got there in time

[Camron Rust]

The first defender certainly fouled him then the offensive player charged.

I'd be fine with going with the first foul. Without it, the offensive player may have been able to avoid the charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The first defender certainly fouled him then the offensive player charged.

I'd be fine with going with the first foul. Without it, the offensive player may have been able to avoid the charge.

I love the call. I do not see the defender extend his arm or body to the dribbler. The dribbler goes where he wants to go and never changes direction. I would consider the contact before the charge for sure, but hopefully, do nothing else than consider the contact.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I love the call. I do not see the defender extend his arm or body to the dribbler. The dribbler goes where he wants to go and never changes direction. I would consider the contact before the charge for sure, but hopefully, do nothing else than consider the contact.

Peace

Are you sure? Look at the defenders left arm extended into the dribbler for 2-3 steps before the charge. It is certainly there. The only question is whether it was enough. Without it, could the dribbler have veered more towards the lane and either avoided the subsequent contact entirely (not likely) or at least made it so that the defender wouldn't have got to the spot in time (possibly)? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the dribbler. The C was doing so too before the L was hot on the call....if he was on the primary and letting the L take the secondary.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The first defender certainly fouled him then the offensive player charged.

I'd be fine with going with the first foul. Without it, the offensive player may have been able to avoid the charge.

I personally would go with the foul on the defense first. I see enough contact to call the foul on the defender. I also give Pearl credit for keeping his composure on this. I've seen him go off on much less than this in the past.

[bucky]

Everything avoided if C calls that first armbar-ish foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you sure? Look at the defenders left arm extended into the dribbler for 2-3 steps before the charge. It is certainly there. The only question is whether it was enough. Without it, could the dribbler have veered more towards the lane and either avoided the subsequent contact entirely (not likely) or at least made it so that the defender wouldn't have got to the spot in time (possibly)? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the dribbler. The C was doing so too before the L was hot on the call....if he was on the primary and letting the L take the secondary.

From my point of view, yes I am sure. It is called judgment. Not calling that a foul at any time honestly.

Peace

[bucky]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

From my point of view, yes I am sure. It is called judgment. Not calling that a foul at any time honestly.

Peace

Not arguing, just adding something, based on my experience as well as college assigner/clinician's input.

Many times, when that first foul (armbar-ish) is not called, the subsequent play/action is difficult to officiate. IOW, by not calling it, something difficult to officiate results. By calling it, especially early in a game if possible, it sets a tone for players, specifically guards. It also is usually easy to match up on both ends because it is a frequent defensive tactic. Most college players are not able to play through it and it impacts their drive/play.

From an overall game perspective, calling it helps out the entire game. It is rarely called in the NBA because players either stop or play through it. In both cases, the subsequent action is not difficult to officiate.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

Not arguing, just adding something, based on my experience as well as college assigner/clinician's input.

Many times, when that first foul (armbar-ish) is not called, the subsequent play/action is difficult to officiate. IOW, by not calling it, something difficult to officiate results. By calling it, especially early in a game if possible, it sets a tone for players, specifically guards. It also is usually easy to match up on both ends because it is a frequent defensive tactic. Most college players are not able to play through it and it impacts their drive/play.

From an overall game perspective, calling it helps out the entire game. It is rarely called in the NBA because players either stop or play through it. In both cases, the subsequent action is not difficult to officiate.

OK, but all I am saying is the arm is just there. It is not extended or trying to direct him or even affects the path of the dribbler. I would need a little more to call a foul on that situation based on what I saw in the video. It did not IMO influence anything that happens with the block-charge. The dribbler had his mind made up that is where he was going and that is where he went.

But this is why they call it judgment. Just saying if I called that then we would have many more fouls in most games. Not that is always a bad thing, but not appropriate for the game in most situation IMO.

Peace

[Multiple Sports]

I have a charge. As far as the arm bar, yes if this is an NCAAW game but on the men's side that arm bar is a no call, easy charge. You can't with 100% conviction say arm bar had an effect on the ball handler but the charge is a no brainer.

[thedewed]

I let them play, but I see the first defender getting in to his body enough to turn it towards him.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Multiple Sports

I have a charge. As far as the arm bar, yes if this is an NCAAW game but on the men's side that arm bar is a no call, easy charge. You can't with 100% conviction say arm bar had an effect on the ball handler but the charge is a no brainer.

This post makes no sense. The arm bar is an automatic foul in NCAAM just like the women’s game and high school. “100% conviction” doesn’t mean anything.

And before people hop in and say “Well, that’s not a call you want to make in the men’s game” I’ve seen multiple officials in this tournament apply 10-1-4 by the book. The “it didn’t affect the play” line of thinking is the entire reason that we have these automatic fouls now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

And before people hop in and say “Well, that’s not a call you want to make in the men’s game” I’ve seen multiple officials in this tournament apply 10-1-4 by the book. The “it didn’t affect the play” line of thinking is the entire reason that we have these automatic fouls now.

That is not a call you make at any level IMO. The arm was not extended and this was not the typical "arm bar" that is allowed in Men's basketball either. Arm-Bars are allowed in the post in the back of the ball handler with limited pressure in a specific "post area." His arm is right by his body. There is going to be some contact with an arm every now and then. I do not see this specific play as him using it unnecessarily or unnaturally to cause contact. The ball handler is going where he wants to and never did anything to avoid the defender he charged into.

Peace