Notre Dame Toledo

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

I stand corrected, White 10 pushed an opponent into a teammate. It looks bad, but the call is still correct. White 10 pushed an opponent, so it is a team control foul for that reason.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep. Officiate what happened, not what could have happened.

[Raymond]

What happened was that #10 shoved the defender prior to the defender making contact with the new ballhandler, so that's what was called. #10 should not have done something so stupid if it was obvious his defender was going to run into his teammate.

Calling that foul #10 eliminates that nonsense of shoving defenders into teammates.