Well if you cannot see the play from his angle, then you are not in a position to say it was an ant. You don't know what kind of contact occurred by #10.

When you make it a point to say you don't see an obvious foul call when nobody else said there was obvious foul, it seems like you're just trying to denigrate the judgment of the calling official

Just my opinion based on years of being around referees who like to sneak diss other officials, especially college officials who are from the same area of the country.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I will agree the angle is not great, but to me, it is very clear he pushes the player into the ball handler. I say that because of how the defender fell. If you wanted to bump into someone, you do not fall like that or you are more prepared for that contact. The defender clearly does not look like he thought he was going to run into the ball handler. It was subtle, but to me very obvious even from that angle. I would have liked to have seen the other angle to confirm the call better, but I think this was a very solid call. The official is standing right there.

Peace

Whether it is CLEAR he pushed off, it is certainly reasonable to SUSPECT he pushed off. The coach went apeshit and the announcers made fools out of themselves over something they didn't understand, not the call itself.

Put those 2 idiots out on the floor and let me comment. Then we'll see how many egregious errors they make.

Who was the foul on? I can see eyes rolling, however. . .
 

We give lip service ad nauseam to communicate, communicate, communicate. I have no idea what the NCAA manual says about communication at the spot of the foul but I know what the NFHS manual says. Even so, it has become so "trendy" at either level for some officials to communicate the absolute minimum at the spot of the foul. If the official had taken just one step out on the floor, given a brief "bird-dog" indicating that the foul was on #10 followed by the charge/push signal and then the TC signal, so much unnecessary controversy could have been avoided and perhaps the technical as well. I am amused how officials refuse to point just one time when necessary to communicate who the foul was on but when a dribbler steps on a boundary line, officials will run over, sometimes getting down on one knee and point three, four maybe five times so everyone in the entire arena and the entire TV audience knows exactly the precise spot where the player's foot or the ball touched the line. Good grief!

Bird dogging is very passe. And it is still in the book but this to me would not have been the situation to use it. For one the call is quick and if he took time then he would have looked unsure. Also the coach went off immediately, that still would have happened. And it was clear to me that the coach realized he was wrong, because he calmed down very quickly. It was almost like it never happened if you saw his expression. ;)


OK, but bird dogging is only optional. They got rid of that as a requirement probably over 10 years ago. It looked silly for the most part. Officials use their voice now. When I call fouls, players and coaches hear me. It is not hard. And let us not exaggerate. I do not see officials do that on any regular basis, especially at that level. There might be some old-timers that once did that like the Burr, Higgins or even Valentine, but those guys did it for 30 years. The guys today hardly are very demonstrative on any call. Yes, maybe a PC foul, but not on an out of bounds call.

Peace

Saying somebody missed a call when you don't have the angle to see if they did or not tells me all I need to know.

And it wouldn't be the first time you took a dig at a college official.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Please stop, at least long enough to enjoy Thanksgiving.

Tough one, but the call looks right. However, isn't it what you can sell? Will anyone other than yellow team believe or support that call? Props to doing it, but damn, it's the right call, but is it the "right" call?

It ain't Thanksgiving if someone isn't fighting.

I don't care if it is the "right" call or not, as long as it can be justified by the rules. White pushed a teammate into an opponent, which is why the call the officials made on the floor was correct, albeit unusual.

It most definitely is the right call if #10 shoved the defender and caused a collision.

I give that official kudos for being in the right position to see something illegal that the rest of us can't see clearly from our camera angle.

What do we say if he calls that foul on the defense and then we have a fan's or team manager's YouTube video pop up showing the offensive player shoving the defender?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

He didn't shove a teammate, he shoved the defender into a teammate.

If he had shoved a teammate into the defender, the foul would have been on his teammate.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If you make calls based on what you know the video will happen to capture from just the right angle to confirm, you're going to miss a lot of calls. Part of being an official is making the right call even when it is not guaranteed to be obvious from every angle. It is a disservice to the game to not call something just because it might be difficult to sell or might not show up on video.

Yet how many of us have heard from the Big Fish to avoid "marginal travels" which show up on video but no one is going to believe in a game? Or the slight fouls which mess-up a shot but the call won't be supported by anyone in the gym?

Part of being an official is also knowing what you can get away with and what the game needs. I'm not saying he made the wrong call, but if goes the other way, will anyone really notice?

If he does not make that call on the push, he has to call a foul on the other Toledo player. Then he could be on ESPN for the next several days bailing out ND and not being apart of a big upset because a call was missed. He had to call what he saw. And yes the big fish theory works a good portion of the time, but I have to trust his positioning and his background. He would not have been on that game if the supervisor did not have faith in him on some level.

Again what makes this mostly an issue is the way the broadcasters ranted about it and the fact that the ND coach went bezerk. ;)

Peace

I have no respect for someone that chooses to not call a foul on illegal contact that causes a shot to miss just because they think it isn't an easy sell.

And what you are suggesting (to make the easy call over the right call) is not in line with the character an official should have.