The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:37am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja View Post
I'm going to go a different angle on this. IIRC this seemed very quick that they were already lined up to shot the free throws when CBS came out of the media time out. Is it possible they actually did shoot both FT's and CBS didn't catch the first one on the broadcast?
I don't remember, but I saw someone on FB say the UCF bench was screaming about
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Play #4:



Peace
I've seen less contact called an F1 Hook & Hold than what Duke #12 did on UCF #35; that was unfortunately a miss.

UCF #15 does a really bad job on boxing out. The ball bounces outward from the rim. The C and L would have a closed look on any obvious contact by Duke #5.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref View Post
I've seen less contact called an F1 Hook & Hold than what Duke #12 did on UCF #35; that was unfortunately a miss.

UCF #15 does a really bad job on boxing out. The ball bounces outward from the rim. The C and L would have a closed look on any obvious contact by Duke #5.
I thought that hook would have warranted a second look had anyone noticed it live. But it's very congested and the ball went the other direction, so I don't blame them for not seeing it live.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:50am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,654
A lot the BS on the internet is focusing on the nonexistent push on tne offensive rebound. It's simply a horrible box out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
A lot the BS on the internet is focusing on the nonexistent push on tne offensive rebound. It's simply a horrible box out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I wouldn't call the push nonexistent, but it was a terrible effort of the UCF player.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:52am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechanicGuy View Post
I wouldn't call the push nonexistent, but it was a terrible effort of the UCF player.


There was no displacement that comes close to warranting a foul.

The iniial drive, similarly, wasn't enough for a PC foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 09:52am
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,522
Play 1: 50/50 foul but defender jumps first and compromises position. Need faster whistle though.

Play 2: Absolutely not a PC on Zion. CC on grounded RA play on Tacko.

Play 3: CNC. Interesting to note that if Tacko deflects the inbound pass the rule changes and there would no longer be a back court exception. Important for the Trail to pay attention to whether the ball was deflected and also for the Lead to have awareness to call this play if Trail does not.

Play 4: Marginal push in the back on Slot side rebounding, given the time/score in that situation. Could see a hook and hold foul on the Lead side rebounder.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 10:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Wow that review for the shot clock is almost impossible.

Peace
Any video of this review?
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 10:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB/PEI, Canada
Posts: 765
1. This is a tough call if you think he was going to finish with his outside hand anyway then contact is marginal let shot blockers be shot blockers. If you fee like he was going up with 2 or lost the ability to finish with his inside hand because a 260+ pound man is on and through his inside arm then I'm ok with it going to the line. Felt late to go with the foul but I'm ok either way.

2. This looks too much like the one he got called for earlier to not get the PC on the first contact. For consistency no call both or get both Official got the rule right with RA and grounded on Tacko.

3. Looks odd but we are all good.

4. It certainly doesn't look like he pushes him hard, but why on the most important rebound of your life would the player jump under the rim and basket to board the ball. Feel like their was displacement there based on what I'm seeing.
__________________
Coach: Hey ref I'll make sure you can get out of here right after the game!

Me: Thanks, but why the big rush.

Coach: Oh I thought you must have a big date . . .we're not the only ones your planning on F$%&ing tonite are we!
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:50pm
beware big brother
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: illinois
Posts: 963
Play 4 is an obvious hook and hold on white 12. Should have been an F1.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:55pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny d View Post
Play 4 is an obvious hook and hold on white 12. Should have been an F1.
I do not think that is a hook and hold at all. #12 is the one that puts his arm under the arm of #35, but they do not lock or even prevent movement of the others. That at most would be a regular foul, but even that is a stretch to me.

I have not seen a single "hook and hold" like that called an F1 at the D1 level all year. And I know as a small college official, we tried to avoid that call on plays like this.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 12:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
I do not think that is a hook and hold at all. #12 is the one that puts his arm under the arm of #35, but they do not lock or even prevent movement of the others. That at most would be a regular foul, but even that is a stretch to me.

I have not seen a single "hook and hold" like that called an F1 at the D1 level all year. And I know as a small college official, we tried to avoid that call on plays like this.

Peace
IDK Rut, this looks like a pretty good example of a hook/hold to me. I've definitely seen similar plays called as such. The only difference being the player being held attempting to jump, which didn't happen here because the ball went to other side of the lane.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 01:45pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref View Post
Any video of this review?
Not much to see or learn from there. Ball didn't obviously hit the rim, the call on the floor stood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny d View Post
Play 4 is an obvious hook and hold on white 12. Should have been an F1.
Gotta agree with you on this one, this action however brief looked like every video JD put out this year addressing the hook and hold.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoopref View Post
Any video of this review?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
Not much to see or learn from there. Ball didn't obviously hit the rim, the call on the floor stood.
From what was described, UCF shot was missed (but "grazed" the rim), shot-clock buzzer goes off, play continued as UCF got the rebound and made put-back FG.

The crew stops the game to review if the previous attempt was a shot clock violation.

From what I know, a shot clock review can be done after the original FG is made; they have to stop the game immediately to check if the shot was released in time.

In this case, the original shot was missed but deemed to have hit the rim. The subsequent FG attempt (the 2nd shot) was made by UCF thus making the previous (alleged) shot clock violation non-reviewable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 25, 2019, 02:55pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechanicGuy View Post
IDK Rut, this looks like a pretty good example of a hook/hold to me. I've definitely seen similar plays called as such. The only difference being the player being held attempting to jump, which didn't happen here because the ball went to other side of the lane.
I have seen quite a few of these as well and as the season went on they were making it clear that we do not call any "locked" arms a hook and hold. You have to be restricted and there was little to no restriction here. A foul maybe, but not a hook and hold.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duke/UNC eyezen Basketball 42 Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:48am
Duke vs. UNC IREFU2 Basketball 21 Wed Mar 08, 2006 04:19pm
VT vs. Duke brandan89 Basketball 16 Tue Feb 01, 2005 04:28pm
Duke UNC Dan_ref Basketball 21 Sun Feb 08, 2004 01:55pm
UVA vs Duke Suppref Basketball 15 Sat Feb 17, 2001 09:51am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1