UCF/Duke

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

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

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

OK. Saw many officials disagree on these all year. I had a similar play this year posted on Synergy and people felt the same kind of contact should not have been called that way. Again they did not look at it and there as not much indicator to make them look. So great that officials after the fact feel that way, I just don't. I would like to hear JD talk about this more than anyone as he has the ear of the NCAA Committee and the interpreters. Maybe this will be voiced or talked about in the future.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

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.

These two plays are almost identical.

One is the Duke Play:



Same kind of look, but they called the foul on the grounded player:



Peace

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

These two plays are almost identical.

To me the Duke play is in fact a hook and hold. I hadn't even noticed this because of the push in the back. The more I see of this game the worse the officiating in this game appears, which is too bad because it was a great game.

[Nevadaref]

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

Fascinating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

I really wanna know how he came to that conclusion. Maybe I'll ask him this summer

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

Harris is working right now -- Gonzaga/LSU.