Notre Dame Toledo

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Certainly not the initial signal given by the nearby trail official.



I wonder what caused him to change his call?

What was his initial signal?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What was his initial signal?

Sorry I misinterpreted the video, foul was on White 10, not White 33. I wrongly thought that some wanted a foul charged to the defense.

Now, where are my house keys?

[JRutledge]

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Still don’t see an obvious push-off by white #10.

Do you have a camera angle that matches the calling official's view?

[ilyazhito]

Even from this angle, I could see that White 10 pushed the defender into his teammate. What was the Notre Dame player thinking?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Do you have a camera angle that matches the calling official's view?

Hard to imagine the production crew didn't have some other view of this play to show. But, we were not shown one. Usually when something like that happens, we get it from 3-4 angles.

So, to your point, you can't say there wasn't something obvious with just one angle any more than we can be sure of every situation on the floor from just one position. Lacking obviousness on video is a bad threshold to judge the correctness/incorrectness of a call/no-call for the same reasons we talk about open looks and closed looks. The camera angle was a closed look...don't trust it.

[Altor]

The obvious foul was the commentators and everyone on the Intarwebs screaming about the officials for calling a foul on the player that was "blown up" when that wasn't at all what was called.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Nope. Do you?

I'm trying to figure out the reason for this comment:

"Still don’t see an obvious push-off by white #10"

I don't see any posts in this thread where somebody said they saw an obvious push-off.

So if you are disagreeing with the official's call, what basis do you have since you don't have his same angle of the play?

--Yep, just re-checked, and not one person called it an obvious foul on #10.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

^

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

[JRutledge]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

...







The calling official has an excellent resume and is a good official. Saying I think he missed this call is NOT the same as a personal attack on the official. You know that, and you should stop insinuating I'm doing something wrong here.

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