Final Four: Virginia v Auburn

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

Your one frame shot doesn't prove it was a foul. It shows contact that in it's context doesn't rise to the level of a foul.

I don't have the video, but it's a grab and it's in the context of a take foul, which normally has a much lower threshold for a whistle.

Not saying it IS a foul, but all those saying the missed double is the only thing here, it's just not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't have the video, but it's a grab and it's in the context of a take foul, which normally has a much lower threshold for a whistle.

Not saying it IS a foul, but all those saying the missed double is the only thing here, it's just not.

I agree with you, but this is also why I do not like still pictures as ways to determine if a foul or a violation took place on its own. Because even if the jersey is being pulled, that does not mean the player was restricted. I think the play in question was more about his finger getting caught into the jersey, but nothing restricted. Also, there is a point of the game too where any little contact can be considered a foul as Auburn had fouls to give and near the end of the game. Great discussion, but also can be deceiving as well if we use a picture to say something was missed, but I get your overall point too.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree with you, but this is also why I do not like still pictures as ways to determine if a foul or a violation took place on its own. Because even if the jersey is being pulled, that does not mean the player was restricted. I think the play in question was more about his finger getting caught into the jersey, but nothing restricted. Also, there is a point of the game too where any little contact can be considered a foul as Auburn had fouls to give and near the end of the game. Great discussion, but also can be deceiving as well if we use a picture to say something was missed, but I get your overall point too.

Peace

I'm not even saying this was missed, but nobody's talking about this as if it doesn't happen. In context, since it's part of the sequence that included the double dribble, we should be at least considering it.

[deecee]

Rich,

Yours and Jeffs points are well taken. Even in a take-foul I didn't think that contact amounted to anything more than the defender getting crossed up and turned around. As sensitive as I was to take-fouls I still wanted to call a foul for an action that I considered an attempt at fouling.

Being too sensitive is not reasonable to the offense as they are trying to run down the clock. Officials sometimes, I felt, erred too much on the defenses side and that creates an unfair balance.

Sometimes though they would not be aware at all and then all of a sudden you get an intentional foul. Depends on the quality of the official too.

[MechanicGuy]

What complicates it, imo, is that I think part of why they missed the illegal dribble is because they were very conscious of a take-foul and focused on that. Given that, I'm surprised they didn't put a whistle on that contact, even as marginal as it was.

In any other scenario, like say if UVA was already in the bonus, I don't think the violation is missed.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Rich,

Yours and Jeffs points are well taken. Even in a take-foul I didn't think that contact amounted to anything more than the defender getting crossed up and turned around. As sensitive as I was to take-fouls I still wanted to call a foul for an action that I considered an attempt at fouling.

Being too sensitive is not reasonable to the offense as they are trying to run down the clock. Officials sometimes, I felt, erred too much on the defenses side and that creates an unfair balance.

Sometimes though they would not be aware at all and then all of a sudden you get an intentional foul. Depends on the quality of the official too.

Agree. I don't think anything was missed on that. It was just incidental contact. It wasn't an incidental illegal dribble.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm not even saying this was missed, but nobody's talking about this as if it doesn't happen. In context, since it's part of the sequence that included the double dribble, we should be at least considering it.

The take foul is a judgment call. The double dribble is not a judgment call. Maybe the official saw the contact and decided to pass? We'll likely not know the answer to that, but is possible!

I think that is why some are not giving much leniency on the double dribble, as with two officials in that area, at least one needs to come up with that 'by rule' call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The take foul is a judgment call. The double dribble is not a judgment call. Maybe the official saw the contact and decided to pass? We'll likely not know the answer to that, but is possible!

How is it not a judgment call? When a dribble ends or when another begins is a judgment call. Now some judgment calls are more obvious than others and in this situation based off of looking at it closely, yes this was not as hard of judgment, but looking at it live can be all kinds of things in mind. Even stepping out of bounds is a judgment call. I do not know why people act like these things cannot involve some judgment and part of a judgment is being able to clearly see the entire picture. I think this play was unusual and probably the official assumed that the defender touched the ball or just was not sure so why call something that critical if you are not sure.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I think that is why some are not giving much leniency on the double dribble, as with two officials in that area, at least one needs to come up with that 'by rule' call.

This was one official's call, not two officials. The play was going away from the C. And if you called that and I ruled something, then I would have an issue with you calling something that I believe I saw.

Peace

[so cal lurker]

A bit of class from Coach Pearl:

Pearl on missed double dribble: 'Get over it'

"The biggest point I want to make, and I'm sincere in this, I'm not just saying this because it's politically the right thing to say. There is human error involved in the game. Kids make mistakes, coaches make mistakes. Yes, officials will make mistakes. That's part of the game. Get over it," he said.

"Sometimes they're going to go your way, sometimes they're not going to go your way. Are we going to give God less glory because we lost and ... only because we win? Stop. Grow up, this is part of the game. These kids taught us, I think, in many, many ways how to handle defeat. And that's a difficult thing to do for these young kids. And I'm proud of them."

[sj]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

A bit of class from Coach Pearl:

Pearl on missed double dribble: 'Get over it'

"The biggest point I want to make, and I'm sincere in this, I'm not just saying this because it's politically the right thing to say. There is human error involved in the game. Kids make mistakes, coaches make mistakes. Yes, officials will make mistakes. That's part of the game. Get over it," he said.

"Sometimes they're going to go your way, sometimes they're not going to go your way. Are we going to give God less glory because we lost and ... only because we win? Stop. Grow up, this is part of the game. These kids taught us, I think, in many, many ways how to handle defeat. And that's a difficult thing to do for these young kids. And I'm proud of them."

This would have to be one of the classiest reactions ever by a coach to a situation such as this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How is it not a judgment call? When a dribble ends or when another begins is a judgment call. Now some judgment calls are more obvious than others and in this situation based off of looking at it closely, yes this was not as hard of judgment, but looking at it live can be all kinds of things in mind. Even stepping out of bounds is a judgment call. I do not know why people act like these things cannot involve some judgment and part of a judgment is being able to clearly see the entire picture.

That is not what "Judgement Call" means.

A "Judgement Call" is when what happens is not in question. It is when the official has to decide if what happened (and was clearly observed) is an infraction or not is (is the contact enough for a foul or not, which player is responsible for the contact, or a roll of the hand enough for a carry or not, when specifically does the dribble end as a player catches the ball with one hand).

There is no question about what happened on this play. The official didn't apply a judgment and decide it was not enough to call. The official simply didn't see it or didn't recognize what he saw.

Stepping OOB is not a judgement call either. The player either stepped out or the player didn't step out. When the player steps out, there is no judgement to be applied to determine if you should blow the whistle or not.

Not seeing something isn't a judgement. It is just not seeing something.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not what "Judgement Call" means.

A "Judgement Call" is when what happens is not in question. It is when the official has to decide if what happened (and was clearly observed) is an infraction or not is (is the contact enough for a foul or not, which player is responsible for the contact, or a roll of the hand enough for a carry or not, when specifically does the dribble end as a player catches the ball with one hand).

Can you direct me to the exact place where I can find this so-called definition? Because the actual definition of "judgment" does not suggest what you are saying.

All judgment means in a dictionary definitions, "the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions."

So let us not add to what we say the word means when there is no such change in the definition.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no question about what happened on this play. The official didn't apply a judgment and decide it was not enough to call. The official simply didn't see it or didn't recognize what he saw.

Did you talk to him directly? I know I didn't talk to the official personally. Actually, I have not heard him speak at all on the matter. I have no idea what he was thinking or not thinking at the time of the play. I just know there was a violation not called. He might have thought the player did something else that did not make it a violation. He would have been wrong, but I have no idea if he missed the action all together thinking of something else or he

Stepping OOB is not a judgement call either. The player either stepped out or the player didn't step out. When the player steps out, there is no judgment to be applied to determine if you should blow the whistle or not.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not seeing something isn't a judgement. It is just not seeing something.

His judgment could have been wrong with either not being aware of one part of that play. If there was no judgment then there would have been a call.

Peace