Virginia Tech vs. Villanova clip request
 

With 1:03 left in the 1H a player control foul is changed to a defensive cylinder foul. I have to admit, in a FED game or a college game without a monitor, I can’t imagine I would go with anything other than an F1/intentional on the ball handler.

27.7 in the 2H is a great call by the C where the prone defender takes out the offensive player’s legs

1.3 left in the 2H. T signals an offensive foul on Nova, after discussion they change the foul to one on VT. Nova makes two FTs to send it into overtime.

Edit: R went over to the commentators and stated that the T just gave the wrong signal and had a defensive foul all along. Bad look, but I think they got it right.

Here is the play (Video)
 

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

Peace

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fPUPIH-ISn0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T7uiufzBEg0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

1) PC Foul only

2) Foul on Orange

3) Foul on Orange (Legal screen)

Rut, thanks. Note that play #1 was changed to a defensive cylinder foul after a monitor review.

1) Defensive foul

I completely understand Lee's initial confusion on play #3. The play looks like a block/charge in which case sending it the other way certainly would have been the correct ruling. Thankfully they end up clearing it up and ruling a defensive foul on VT.

Play #1, I understand that the rule is written in such a way that they have to go with a cylinder foul at the monitor, but I just don't believe the rule was meant to not penalize offensive players for what is a clear excessive action - the ball handler knew what he was doing.

In my games without a monitor, I have an F1/intentional on the ball handler for contact that is unnecessary and excessive. (And I am not even considering the FED's contact above the shoulders interp that disappeared.)

That would be a hard sell as the old L/new T. As C that could be a possibility,but i think you'd have to lean on the old POE.

1. PC foul only.
2. Yes, foul on orange.
3. Illegal screen...screener was still moving and leaning into the path of the defender all the way to contact, not getting to the spot and allowing 1-2 steps for the opponent to avoid it.

I forgot about that because it doesn't apply in any of the rules sets I work

I think 1 step is sufficient at this speed and I have him giving
that. It's close, though.

That was my initial thought also, but I seemed to be in a small minority with that opinion and I'm not motivated yet for debates...LOL

Eric Lewis, on one of the Facebook forums, concurs with the illegal screen ruling for continuing to move into the defender.

So we are in good company :)

Based on his posting history, I think he'll agree with my opinion on the blockcharge play from SELA-PFW play I posted in another thread.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I saw that you referenced you being in the minority opinion on that play. I haven't seen what your opinion is on that one.

This play is addressed by JD Collins in the NCAA Weekly Whistle #2 video. He states that it was correctly changed to a cylinder foul after video review.

I will post that video in my response regarding the screen along the end line.

JD Collins agrees with us. Here is the NCAA Weekly Whistle #2 video discussing two plays from this thread.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yl5j11rHoLw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>