NCAAW Baylor/UConn

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Worst angle is the live camera feed.

Still photo clearly shows contact on DiJonai Carrington's shooting elbow by #20 Olivia Nelson-Ododa before the ball is released.

I agree, but still 4-27 (or the NCAA Women's equivilent) applies.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Endline angle video clearly shows #3 Aaliyah Edwards moving forward (A to B) toward Carrington and then through and past Carrington's original position, with Carrington ending up on the floor.

She is absolutely moving forward, but she does not make any contact with the player until she tops the ball. And that is usually not how A to B contact is judged at that level when there is a clear play on the ball. Women do not usually do that contact as high in the air.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sure, Carrington's leaning back off balance to avoid a blocked shot might have had something to do with her ending up on the floor, but the body contact by Edwards certainly helped. Watch where Edwards ends up after the contact.

And it is a great girl's basketball call that would be scolded if called in the very same situation in a boy's or men's game. Been there and called some BS and was told about it directly. I am not stating anything I have not experienced and told why I should lay off that call at both the high school and college levels.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

....





And it is a great girl's basketball call that would be scolded if called in the very same situation in a boy's or men's game. Been there and called some BS and was told about it directly. I am not stating anything I have not experienced and told why I should lay off that call at both the high school and college levels.



Peace

I would not get scolded for making that call in any of my NCAA Men's basketball games or boys HS games.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I would not get scolded for making that call in any of my NCAA Men's basketball games or boys HS games.

I would. It would start with the coaches, then the fans (don't care about them but mentioning it for context), then later some of my partners and supervisor. Happened a few times.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Protect the airborne shooter all the way back down to the floor.

Especially since Carrington was pushed while still holding the ball after the ball was "topped" by the Edwards.

Then we do not call very many fouls as a community. Again when you show me a block that does not involve contact of some kind, then I will show you a bunch of free throw we do not reward. Again, all contact is never a foul. Even the airborne shooter rule does not say any contact is a foul. That is why 4-27 is there, clearly.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then we do not call very many fouls as a community.

Protect does not mean to call every single instance of contact a foul. Never did. It means to stay with the the airborne shooter and watch for illegal contact that creates an defensive advantage, or an offensive disadvantage, as well considering landing spot safety concerns. It also means that for a second, or two, to let your partner(s) worry about the rebounding fouls.

In Carrington's case, she hadn't even released the ball when she got pushed, certainly a illegal disadvantage for an airborne shooter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Protect does not mean to call every single instance of contact a foul. Never did. It means to stay with the the airborne shooter and watch for illegal contact that creates an defensive advantage, or an offensive disadvantage, as well considering landing spot safety concerns. It also means that for a second, or two, to let your partner(s) worry about the rebounding fouls.

In Carrington's case, she hadn't even released the ball when she got pushed, certainly a illegal disadvantage for an airborne shooter.

We see plays like this not called all the time. Why is this so special about the airborne shooter? We see airborne shooters get their shot blocked and fall with some contact and nothing happens. No one makes a fuss about it. But because this is a high profile situation, everyone now wants to go to the shooter must be protected at all cost. Just find it funny how I watch games, show plays and see how the game is called much of the time and now this is a bridge too far.

Just funny to me. This is basically a call if was in the Men's game no one would care. IJS

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We see plays like this not called all the time. Why is this so special about the airborne shooter? We see airborne shooters get their shot blocked and fall with some contact and nothing happens. No one makes a fuss about it. But because this is a high profile situation, everyone now wants to go to the shooter must be protected at all cost. Just find it funny how I watch games, show plays and see how the game is called much of the time and now this is a bridge too far.

Just funny to me. This is basically a call if was in the Men's game no one would care. IJS

Peace

My opinion about this play would be the same if were a Men's game. I've seen similar end-of-game situations discussed in clinics and camps I've attended over the years.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My opinion about this play would be the same if were a Men's game. I've seen similar end-of-game situations discussed in clinics and camps I've attended over the years.

Been to many clinics where plays like that was discussed and told to allow the bigger players to be big. I was told personally about not putting fouls on bigger players even if there is a little contact.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Been to many clinics where plays like that was discussed and told to allow the bigger players to be big. I was told personally about not putting fouls on bigger players even if there is a little contact.

Peace

Then it's a regional thing. But it's definitely not "it wouldn't be called in a Men's game" thing because I've heard and talked with plenty of supervisors and NBA/D1 officials who would say to put a whistle on this play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Been to many clinics ... told personally about not putting fouls on bigger players even if there is a little contact.

Believe you. Key word: Little.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, this isn't one of those plays where the contact is after the shot is released and the question becomes whether, or not, the contact put the safe landing of the airborne shooter at risk, and not a question of whether, or not, the contact affected the trajectory of the shot. This isn't one of those plays.

In this case, Carrington hadn't even released the ball when she got pushed, she still had the ball in her hands, certainly an illegal disadvantage for an airborne shooter, or any shooter. In fact, it would still be an illegal disadvantage is she wasn't an airborne shooter (which she was) and was a "grounded" shooter (which she wasn't).

Airborne, or not, Carrington was shooting the ball when she got pushed. Call it "in the act" if one wishes, but she was shooting the ball and got "body pushed", and the trajectory of her shot was negatively impacted.

Sure, she had no business attacking two taller defenders with open teammates in the most important play of her college career, and I don't know if Kim Mulkey drew up that play in the manner in which it was executed, but that's still a foul, and unfortunately for Baylor, two of the three officials most likely to make this call didn't get a good look (straight lined, and didn't rotate).

When I say that she went against bigger players, it is without question a chance that the bigger players will contact you and even knock you down. So again the ball was contacted before anybody contact and 4-27 still applies when you have a blocked shot when the ball was touched first.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... the ball was contacted before anybody contact and 4-27 still applies when you have a blocked shot when the ball was touched first ...

The ball was certainly touched first, but she still had the ball in her hands (the touch didn't dislodge the ball) when she got pushed. This is not one of those plays where the shot is released and then the ball is blocked and then the contact occurs after the release such that the contact doesn't affect the trajectory of the shot. This is not one of those plays.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The ball was certainly touched first, but she still had the ball in her hands when she got pushed. This in not one of those plays where the shot is released and then the ball is blocked and then the contact occurs after the release such that the contact doesn't affect the trajectory of the shot. This is not one of those plays.

I have preached this philosophy for years. Ball first, then unless the contact is unnecessary or not apart of the original play, incidental.

You can disagree, I stand by my position on this. All contact is not a foul or illegal, that is in the rules too.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The ball was certainly touched first, but she still had the ball in her hands (the touch didn't dislodge the ball) when she got pushed. This is not one of those plays where the shot is released and then the ball is blocked and then the contact occurs after the release such that the contact doesn't affect the trajectory of the shot. This is not one of those plays.

Agree with this point. The shooter withstood the ball contact and continued to shoot after that. The only way ball contact first is not a foul is when that ball contact dislodges the ball. If the shooter plays through that, subsequent contact is independent of the ball contact.