DePaul/Dayton

[whistleone]

First OT, .4 left. Dayton lob pass to the middle of the lane, appears as if the defender has ahold of the Dayton player's left arm and then proceeds to hack the offensive player's right arm as he attempts a tap to win the game. End result, no call and the game goes to double overtime.

Anyone else stay up late enough to see it? Thoughts?

I felt like there could/should have been a call. I understand not wanting to "decide the outcome of the game" but I think I could have slept at night after making that call.

[Rich]

Originally posted by whistleone
First OT, .4 left. Dayton lob pass to the middle of the lane, appears as if the defender has ahold of the Dayton player's left arm and then proceeds to hack the offensive player's right arm as he attempts a tap to win the game. End result, no call and the game goes to double overtime.

Anyone else stay up late enough to see it? Thoughts?

I felt like there could/should have been a call. I understand not wanting to "decide the outcome of the game" but I think I could have slept at night after making that call.

I thought it was a good no call. YMMV.

[ref18]

I thought the officials in this game did a great job.

And that was a great no call.

[johnSandlin]

I thought the officials did a nice job as well all the way around in this game. Especially, on the call at the end of the first overtime with .4 seconds to go. Yes, in true definition of a foul, there was a foul. However, in that circumstance right there, that is a good no call.

[ShadowStripes]

Good no call. 2 guys going up together in an attempt to tap the ball, one toward the basket and the other away from it. That's the explanation to give to the coach.

[Mark Dexter]

At first, I thought it was a foul.

Then I realized the contact was after the tap, no one was hurt, and no advantage was gained (couldn't be a rebound on that shot).

Jim Burr got it right with less than half a second to think it over.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
At first, I thought it was a foul.

Then I realized the contact was after the tap, no one was hurt, and no advantage was gained (couldn't be a rebound on that shot).

Jim Burr got it right with less than half a second to think it over.

I believe that contact was there before the tip, and was maintained throughout the tip. There was an advantage gained - the defense gained an advantage by illegally contacting an opponent, who became a shooter. Do I think the shot was affected? Can't say from the TV angle. The possible absense of a rebound means nothing, in my mind, of whether a shooter was fouled or not. Say the contact was a little bit harder. There would still be no rebound, but you might call that foul.

I understand the philosophy of having a no-call, however, where do we draw the line? Do we allow the shooter to be clotheslined? Of course not. But Mr. Burr passed on the contact that surely would have been called at a different time in the game.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

I believe that contact was there before the tip, and was maintained throughout the tip. There was an advantage gained - the defense gained an advantage by illegally contacting an opponent, who became a shooter. Do I think the shot was affected? Can't say from the TV angle. The possible absense of a rebound means nothing, in my mind, of whether a shooter was fouled or not. Say the contact was a little bit harder. There would still be no rebound, but you might call that foul.

I understand the philosophy of having a no-call, however, where do we draw the line? Do we allow the shooter to be clotheslined? Of course not. But Mr. Burr passed on the contact that surely would have been called at a different time in the game.

Unlike many others in this thread, I think it should have been called a foul! As pointed out above, the defender DID gain an advantage by all the contact he initiated...THROUGHOUT THE PLAY! Sometimes we have to have the guts to no-call a close one...and sometimes we have to have the 'nads to make the call on a close one. I think someone should have had a call here!!

[mick]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
I believe that contact was there before the tip, and was maintained throughout the tip. There was an advantage gained - the defense gained an advantage by illegally contacting an opponent, who became a shooter. Do I think the shot was affected?

Mine are big enough to make that call, unless I was instructed otherwise.
...Heck, Dayton only had a 3:10 chance of making the free throw anyway.
mick

I had Dayton.

[rainmaker]

My husband thought it was a foul, I could see it going either way. I'd have called it, but I'm not a D1 ref, either! The angle from the TV camera was terrible. If it was a foul, there was advantage gained! ...like another overtime, instead of a loss. So I don't see that as a good reason for a no-call. But it was really hard to tell how much contact there really was, and when that contact occurred. So I'm willing to give the refs the benefit of the doubt.

[blindzebra]

I had a good no call on the hit on the tap, but a bad no call for the VERY OBVIOUS hold of the inside arm that kept the offensive player from getting two hands on the ball.
The Dayton player's entire left side barely left the floor , because the Depaul player locked down his inside arm.

[rockyroad]

First instinct was it was a foul...after seeing replay, I understand why he passed...however, I was also wondering why Burr had the jump ball call on Depaul's end a little earlier. Defender slaps ball as shooter goes up, ball comes out of shooter's hands and Dayton center grabs ball out of the air...whistle, held ball, possession arrow to Depaul, they end up scoring to keep game tied...ouch.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

...Heck, Dayton only had a 3:10 chance of making the free throw anyway.
mick

Good point...no sense embarrasing the kid on national TV.

[zebraman]

If he sucked his whistle because of the time left, I think that's wrong. If he didn't think it was worthy of a foul (regardless of time), no problem.

Why penalize a team just because of when the foul happened? Doesn't that go against the whole intent of fair play and being consistent from beginning to end?

I called a foul at the state tournament with a couple seconds left in a barn-burner game and all my evals said, "good job stepping up and making the tough call at the end of the game." I possibly could have passed on it without getting hung after the game, but it was consistent with what we had called the rest of the game. Of course, we all know that there are many differences in philosophy between high school and college.

I would have a hard time working for an assignor who wanted a foul in the closing seconds to have to be harder than a foul at any other point in the game.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Mar 19th, 2004 at 01:54 PM]

[Rich]

Originally posted by zebraman
If he sucked his whistle because of the time left, I think that's wrong. If he didn't think it was worthy of a foul (regardless of time), no problem.

Why penalize a team just because of when the foul happened? Doesn't that go against the whole intent of fair play and being consistent from beginning to end?

I called a foul at the state tournament with a couple seconds left in a barn-burner game and all my evals said, "good job stepping up and making the tough call at the end of the game." I possibly could have passed on it without getting hung after the game, but it was consistent with what we had called the rest of the game. Of course, we all know that there are many differences in philosophy between high school and college.

I would have a hard time working for an assignor who wanted a foul in the closing seconds to have to be harder than a foul at any other point in the game.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Mar 19th, 2004 at 01:54 PM]

I don't think that was a foul at the D-I level at any time in the game. I'm not penalizing players for going after a loose ball.

But the time definitely was a factor. Would Dayton have tried to rush and tip that ball if there was more time on the clock?