Notre Dame Toledo
 

My timeline is blowing up with a replay from the Notre Dame Toledo MBB game.

There is an offensive foul called on the handoff, where the player called for the foul gets blown up. I actually think its a good call, but the world is freaking out.

Don't have a time stamp so someone can actually get video:

https://twitter.com/BadSportsRefs/st...727286272?s=20

Player Control Foul ...
 

Did White 33 stick out his right elbow?

Possibly not knowing the defender was going to end up that close and with no intent to make contact?

Play-by-play
 

2nd half
4:04 Foul on TJ Gibbs. 50 - 45
4:04 TJ Gibbs Turnover. 50 - 45
4:04 Technical Foul on Notre Dame. 50 - 45


TJ GIBBS
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
#10
Guard

The foul was called on #10 as he ran past the ball handler. He must have given a shove.

The foul has to be on number 10. And the play by play posted above confirms it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Changes (David Bowie, 1971) ...
 

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

All I see him signal is a team control foul. Could be on either player.

It is a TC foul signal. A player pushing his opponent into the ball handler is a TC foul. He gave the proper signal.

And he has Mike Bray in his face immediately. If you see the entire video, the coach realizes he overreacted to the call and almost acts like nothing happened.

Peace

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

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?

Foul on #10 - (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B3IvceDo-R0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.