Wofford vs. Kentucky (Video)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Sco53

nope, great no call

Agreed

[jakeas2]

Why do we think this is not a double dribble? Not sure I can tell definitively that it was or wasn't touched by the defender. Am I missing something?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jakeas2

Why do we think this is not a double dribble? Not sure I can tell definitively that it was or wasn't touched by the defender. Am I missing something?

Some of us see the ball hitting the defender's foot. You say you can't tell if it was touched or wasn't touched. So if the official wasn't sure if was touched or not touched by the defender, his best recourse is to call nothing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[jakeas2]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Some of us see the ball hitting the defender's foot. You say you can't tell if it was touched or wasn't touched. So if the official wasn't sure if was touched or not touched by the defender, his best recourse is to call nothing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Yea I understand that if you can't tell then it's no call. Just not sure why we are so definitive that this was a great no call if it's inconclusive one way or the other.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jakeas2

Yea I understand that if you can't tell then it's no call. Just not sure why we are so definitive that this was a great no call if it's inconclusive one way or the other.

I am so definitive because he touched the ball with his foot and the way the ball stopped, only the defender's foot was there. And I saw that live, but the replay made me question if it did touch the defender. Then when I blew up the image, it was obvious to me it only could have touched the defender's foot. That is why I blew up the image on the video to show it definitely hit something and did not appear at all to hit the dribbler in any way. I am going to assume the official knew as he clearly did not hesitate or seem to flinch when making the call.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am so definitive because he touched the ball with his foot and the way the ball stopped, only the defender's foot was there. And I saw that live, but the replay made me question if it did touch the defender. Then when I blew up the image, it was obvious to me it only could have touched the defender's foot. That is why I blew up the image on the video to show it definitely hit something and did not appear at all to hit the dribbler in any way. I am going to assume the official knew as he clearly did not hesitate or seem to flinch when making the call.



Peace

That replay pretty much ends the conversation.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ChuckS]

Anybody calling him for a travel? After he picks up the ball and establishes his left foot as the pivot foot, he moves it twice.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

Anybody calling him for a travel? After he picks up the ball and establishes his left foot as the pivot foot, he moves it twice.

I see that travel get overlooked at all levels of basketball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

Anybody calling him for a travel? After he picks up the ball and establishes his left foot as the pivot foot, he moves it twice.

Yeah, just like I am calling a foul on the defender. After all, he touches him. No!!!

Peace

[Jimmie24]

Initially I thought it was a missed call too. After seeing the blown up replay I believe it was definitive that it hit the defenders foot. Great no call. As for the slight shuffling of the pivot, I wondered about that as well, but we see that not called all the time at all levels.

What hurts the most, is I have had plays like this where it was in my PCA and I elected to pass on a call and my partner comes from nowhere to make a call. Makes for an interesting discussion in the locker room.

[bucky]

Do not need the blowup portion. The ball "deadens" when it hits the foot of the defender.

Yes, could have went with a travel....just as one could have called a travel when #3 initially got the ball in the clip. But...as has been noted, both are too marginal, at least in this sequence.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's close, but the defender hits the ball BEFORE it contacts the board. He knocks it into the glass, then contacts it again.

So, that brings up the question...if a defender tips the ball before it hits the glass but the ball is still mostly going up and towards the basket, wouldn't the ball touching the glass then make it illegal to touch it after that? The shot hasn't necessarily ended.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So, that brings up the question...if a defender tips the ball before it hits the glass but the ball is still mostly going up and towards the basket, wouldn't the ball touching the glass then make it illegal to touch it after that? The shot hasn't necessarily ended.

It's prolly more defendable by rule to say goaltending can still apply after a blocked shot, but the way it's expected to be called at the college level is once a defender blocks or tips the shot attempt and the ball still hits the backboard, it is fair game. Even if another defender comes in and blocks it off the glass, no goaltending. Is that the same expectation in your area Raymond?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

It's prolly more defendable by rule to say goaltending can still apply after a blocked shot, but the way it's expected to be called at the college level is once a defender blocks or tips the shot attempt and the ball still hits the backboard, it is fair game. Even if another defender comes in and blocks it off the glass, no goaltending. Is that the same expectation in your area Raymond?

I've never considered it to be GT on such a play, but this play and how the TV broadcast reviewed it got me thinking....nothing in the rule says the backboard element goes a way if the defender gets is first. It makes sense when the block goes off the board and back to the blocker's hands. It would be silly to then call that GT. But when a defender tips the ball at the release and the ball clearly continues and has a chance to go it, it would not seem right to allow another independent touch after it hits the glass.