Anyone else catch the blarge in the Duke / MD game?

Nope, missed it but haven't been following closely.

Go TERPS! :)

I did not see that one but I did notice something in the Florida/Miss St. game that I would like to bring up. A 3 Person crew I was on last week had the same thing happen and I still don't like it. Here you go:

Lead calls a foul on B1 against A1 who is going up for a shot under the basket (coming out of Trails primary) but Lead has the play in his/her primary. Lead goes up with fist however Trail comes in with Intentional Foul. I always pregame this with my partners by saying an intentional is just one of those reaction plays when you immediately know that is what it is. This play happened right in front of Lead and he did not call an intentional. I just think that if trail or C come in with what the coach perceives as a "secondary" (for lack of a better word)call, the whole crew suffers. Just curious to your thoughts and how you pregame this type of situation.

Need to know a bit more - if the play originated in T's primary, s/he's got the call all the way to the hoop, unless the player beats the defender, then L's got any secondary contact. Otherwise, it's T's call all the way.

I didn't see either play (yours or the fla game) but aint it possible the T saw B1 grab a huge chunk of A1's shirt as he went by him? Or maybe B1 put both hands on A1's hips as he went up and PUSHED him, like in an intentional manner?

I'm guessing that trail had the opportunity to see the entire play develope. Maybe trail saw B1 "size up" A1 on the way to the hoop...The severity and intent of B1 may have been more easily seen from the wider angle as trail took the play all the way to the basket.

In the Fla/MissSt game, A1 was in transition and in C's primary (FT line to FT line) while driving to the basket. Once A1 was below FT Line extended, he was on Lead's side of the basket away from C and L obviously had a good look at and did not go up with an Intentional.

In the game I had last week, A1 drove the baseline in front of Lead (I was opposite C) and T came in and gave an Intentional at the same time L went up with closed fist only. The coach had plenty to say to me about my parnter's call. I supported my partner with the coach by saying that it was a foul of excessive contact. He said, "Boys, we ain't playing Tiddly Winks!" I got a good laugh and ammo for my partner in our post game. My question remains: do you consider it acceptable for a partner to come in with an intentional when the calling official has already passed? How do you cover this in your pregame?

Why is it your descriptions of both plays do not say at all what the contact might have been. Who CARES out of whos area into whos primary the play develops? Was the intentional call right or not?

Trust your partner means trust your partner.

(And FWIW, and with all due respect, if you would have used your "ammo" on me in our locker room I would have given you the standard issue 2 word reply ;) )

One other question: If you as L have passed on the intentional and one of your partners does go up with it, would you as L then go up as a show of solidarity for the coaches?

Now that is 2 "lesser" teams you are backing -- NC & MD. Go Blue Devils! Hmmm...guess they heard me. :D

I saw the blarge. They ended up going with the charge, which according to the TV angle was the right call. Would like to know how they explained that to Mr. Williams on the sideline...especially since a blarge should go to the AP!

Anyway they got out of it pretty well and moved on. Great game and tough one to call. I thought they did a good job overall... but the supervisor will probably have something to say about the blarge ;)

I watched the game and I thought sure they went with the AP which favored Duke. The next AP went to MD.

You might be right. Just at the time this was happening my 3 year daughter came and insisted that I play Barbie's with her :) . So I was trying to multi-task and watch the game and play with her so I may have missed it. Can anyone confirm that they went with the AP ruling?

Yes they did go with AP.
Once the Genie is out of the bottle...:(

Why is it your descriptions of both plays do not say at all what the contact might have been. Who CARES out of whos area into whos primary the play develops? Was the intentional call right or not?

Trust your partner means trust your partner.

(And FWIW, and with all due respect, if you would have used your "ammo" on me in our locker room I would have given you the standard issue 2 word reply )


Dan,

One of the challenges of e-mail is that it is hard to express things "tongue in cheek". My "ammo" comment was made in jest as my partner who called the intentional is a very good friend as well as official and it was something to talk about after the game in a spirit of good natured ribbing. I am sorry that did not come across that way. I obviously supported my partner with the disgruntled coach.

My main point is that the calling official did not go with the intentional and that truly is a matter of trust don't you think? The second offical, farther from the play in both cases, came in with a call that was different. I believe he should have trusted his partner in both cases...and no, I would not have called it in either case. If the situation was reversed and Lead did call it, how would you react if T or C came in and said, "No it wasn't an intentional and we are going to wave it off."? Has anyone ever put an intentional back in their pocket?!?

I figured that.

Quote:

My main point is that the calling official did not go with the intentional and that truly is a matter of trust don't you think? The second offical, farther from the play in both cases, came in with a call that was different. I believe he should have trusted his partner in both cases...and no, I would not have called it in either case. If the situation was reversed and Lead did call it, how would you react if T or C came in and said, "No it wasn't an intentional and we are going to wave it off."? Has anyone ever put an intentional back in their pocket?!?

Again, the T sees things that the L does not & vice versa. Unless there's a good argument that the ball was dead before the foul (prior foul or some violation) I don't see how any foul can be waved off.

Bottom line: if the call was correct the call was correct. I think we should thank our partner for reaching into our area to grab a *good* call and not be so worried about who's calling what where.

So is a Blarge like a Chock? Actually a couple of games ago did a game and my partner actually started to put his hand behind his head and almost had the PC signal finished when for what ever reason he went to the block signal. Had me confused and the one coach was hollerin.

Half a dozen of one
Six of the other . . . .

;)

According to last weeks Memo, NCAA Women's, When the play originates from the T, and goes to the L's Primary, then it is now the L's call, no matter the defender.

This happen in a Men's game.
 

Bart,

What about the Men's side. This did not happen in a Women's game. Who cares what the women do here. The men's side and the NF are more in line with each other, right?

Re: This happen in a Men's game.
 

Don't know about the men's side. I don't think the NF has even addressed this play. Sooo, go over it in pregame. I think its 6 or 1, half dozen of another.

Be careful what you say about what the Women do. The women's side is setting a lot of standards, both for the Men's and NF. In fact the NF mechanics have adopted some of the women's mechanics. Of course these all come from the NBA. Now the NCAA Men's side is a little slower to come around, but that is only because the Women thought of it first.

Not so fast.
 

Bart,

That is not true. The NF long switches, birddogging is optional, converage area and rotation is about the same. Anytime I work with a guy that does women's college, we always have to decide if we are going to use NF or Women's logic behind the last second shot. The NF has kept this the opposite table, just like the Men's side. I could go on and on. All the Men did was go table side on fouls. That is about it. Even their Team Foul signals are completely different.

The NF did more to be like the Men's side this year alone than the Men did to be like the Women's side. The Men changed one thing. I would not call that a coming along with much of anything.

Peace

I think the biggest change is NF is now flexing off the ball. The L go strong side, once the ball is accross half court and pass the lane line extended. They can also bounce the ball in the back court base line and on the side lines. I use to think NF says we don't switch in the back court, but I'm not sure.

Everything you just stated has nothing to do with the women's game exclusively. Many of the mechanics are similar. But it is not like the Women's game invented them or changes have come directly from them. Actually the Women's Mechanics are more influenced by the WNBA. Yes the WNBA is influenced by the NBA, but it has been obvious that the NCAA (Men)is not trying to follow the NBA way of doing things. That is very clear.

Heck, the NCAA Women's officials work the college season, then turn around and work the WNBA season. Of course they want some similarities. They want to make it easy on themselves. But the NCAA does not have the influence nor do officials work both NCAA and NBA games. That cannot happen. ;)

Peace

Does the Men's side have a mechanics book? If so, does it say when to flex? If so, does it say to flex as stated in the NF and CCA manual for Women's?

I don't understand the first half of this statement. I thought the NBA and WNBA mechanics were the same. But, it sounds like you are saying they are nothing alike. Sooo, I guess i stand corrected. I take it back about NCAA mechanics coming from the NBA.
There, you happy! :)

Of course the Men have their own CCA Mechanics book. And yes, the philosophy and mechanics is very different as to when to rotate and when not to rotate. It is in line with the NF and that philosophy. For one the Women's philosophy was to rotate when the ball crosses the middle of the court when the ball is in the half court set. The Men is pretty much the same as the NF and puts more of an issue of the ball being below the FT line extended. And if you have both of the books, you will see the many differences between the two. Many more than we can state here.

Peace

It is not about being happy, you made an incorrect statement. The NBA and the WNBA are the same. But the Women have adopted WNBA philosophies and mechanics and are not trying to hide that fact. The NCAA Men's are in no way trying to do that. NCAA Women and NCAA officials tend to be the same on many levels. Which is one of the reasons I would think they have little to no resistance with the WNBA to NCAA Women's changes.


Peace

My mechanics manual does not say "ball being below the FT line extended". In fact it says the same as Women's CCA. Strong side when ball crosses half court. I can't remember but it might say all three officials have to be in front court. Sooo I think you might be mistaken.

Six of one, three factorial of the other.

Don't get me started, or I'll go off for sqrt(36) hours!!!

You are right when talking about the language.
 

You are right Bart, it does not use that language. But the diagrams are different and in the CCA Women's manual, it makes it clear that they want a rotation above the FT line extended, if the ball has passed the middle of the court. Also understand the the L's coverage area is different than the Men's side. So rotation and coverage will prompt a rotation on the Women's side, that would not be so on the Men's side.

The point is it is different. And if you go to college camps on both sides of the NCAA Mechanics, you will see even more how different they are.

Peace