Notre Dame Toledo

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Player989random

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?

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.

[Player989random]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Player989random

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Player989random

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Illegal contact still matters based on the result (normal offensive and defensive movement in the rulebook). The result here is that the player bumped into a ball handler and clearly knocked down that ball handler. Just like how easy someone can make a basket matters if it is a foul or not. Because touching someone is not always a foul.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Illegal contact still matters based on the result (normal offensive and defensive movement in the rulebook). The result here is that the player bumped into a ball handler and clearly knocked down that ball handler. Just like how easy someone can make a basket matters if it is a foul or not. Because touching someone is not always a foul.

Peace

I don't disagree at all. My point wasn't about calling or not calling marginal contact but about making a call that is clearly a foul and clearly and advantage but might not be visible form wherever the camera happens to be....you gotta call the game regardless of whether you think the video will be able to confirm every call or not.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

And at lower levels, most of the time there is only one fuzzy camera angle from the top row of the bleachers. Am I not supposed to make a call based on the notion that it won't be prominent from that one angle?

The "beat the tape" philosophy is, in my opinion, overused at the lower levels by guys that work D1 games with a dozen camera angles. Call the game and hopefully you work for an assigner that will have your back when the film is inconclusive (which it is in many cases).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

And at lower levels, most of the time there is only one fuzzy camera angle from the top row of the bleachers. Am I not supposed to make a call based on the notion that it won't be prominent from that one angle?

The "beat the tape" philosophy is, in my opinion, overused at the lower levels by guys that work D1 games with a dozen camera angles. Call the game and hopefully you work for an assigner that will have your back when the film is inconclusive (which it is in many cases).

I still think we have to beat the tape. After all, that is what we will be ultimately judged by in many situations. But that being said we cannot only officiate what the tape can see on the play, sometimes our positioning is what "beats the tape." His positioning was great and the reaction by the coach made it easy to call a T as well. I am surprised there was not another angle on this play, but if it had been a nationally televised game like on CBS or ESPN, I would suspect they would have had another angle. I still think we can beat the tape.

Peace

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The key distinction here for calling an offensive foul is whether the defender #24 would have hit the ball handler/screener absent the contact from the cutting offensive player #10.

If 24 is clearly going around the screener and 10 pushes 24 so that 24 now bowls over the screener -- offensive foul.

If 24 is going to contact the screener anyways and 10 steers 24 so that 24 now bowls over the screener -- defensive foul.

Our goal as referees is to call the obvious. 24 is following 10 extremely closely and while it's likely that 10 steers 24 into the screener it's not obvious enough that 10 has changed 24's path to call an offensive foul in this situation.

How does one define "steers" in reference to changing 24's path?

[Pantherdreams]

I don't want to play future detective that much. Could defender have run through. Could defender have stopped short and gone under, could defender have changed angle and tailed . . .

I need to officiate what happened. Defender was defending a cutter, that cutter contacted the defender, the next resulting play was the defender running into the ball handler while being pushed/contacted by the cutter.

Based on the evidence I have there was illegal contact leading to a player(s) being disadvantaged. Call the foul on the player responsible for the illegal contact.