Men's NCAA video bulletin

[ChuckElias]

Anybody see the video bulletin on the NCAA site? I like it.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske...ing_bulletins/

So if your partner calls an intentional foul, and you think it could be flagrant, do you go to your partner with that info?

[JRutledge]

I would say yes. That is what Nichols wants. You do what the boss wants.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Anybody see the video bulletin on the NCAA site? I like it.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske...ing_bulletins/

So if your partner calls an intentional foul, and you think it could be flagrant, do you go to your partner with that info?

Heck yes, even in a high school game. Part of my pregame is that the crew gets together on "unusual stuff" which includes technicals and intentionals. I would tell the lead what I thought and then it's up to him if he wants to use my info or not.

On another note, that drive originated in the center's area and went directly to the hoop and stayed in the center's side of the key. Wasn't that more of the center's call than the lead's call? Or does NCAA do it differently in transition?

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
On another note, that drive originated in the center's area and went directly to the hoop and stayed in the center's side of the key. Wasn't that more of the center's call than the lead's call? Or does NCAA do it differently in transition?

Z

No. The ball was in transition. It is the same in HS amd college. Either official can make this call.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

No. The ball was in transition. It is the same in HS amd college. Either official can make this call.

Peace

Who would take it on a double whistle? Center since it's technically his primary?

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


Who would take it on a double whistle? Center since it's technically his primary?

Z

There is no primary coverage in transition (at least not based on the half court coverage area). Either official can make this call and take this call. It might depend more on who has called more fouls or who just wants to take the call.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

There is no primary coverage in transition (at least not based on the half court coverage area). Either official can make this call and take this call. It might depend more on who has called more fouls or who just wants to take the call.

Peace

Thanks Rut,

We're doing 3-person for the first time ever here in WA and I appreciate the info.

Z

[Wearin' Stripes]

It looks like they did a good job cleaning the mess up. It appears that they called an direct unsporting tech, but I saw a VA player push the ISU kid.....so I am wondering shouldn't it have been an intentional tech or is there some philosophy on this??

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by zebraman
Who would take it on a double whistle? Center since it's technically his primary?

Z

If I were the Lead, I would give my C the first crack. If he doesn't come up with it, then I'm on it. But even in transition, we want the C to handle plays that originate on "his" side of the court. Lead can certainly grab it, but all things being equal, I'd prefer the C to have it.

And if you watch the video again, you'll see that the C does have a whistle on the play, but Burr is so close to it that he's the one who jumps into the fray.

[ChuckElias]

Oh, the other thing to discuss in that video is that it looks like they shot the T and returned to the POI. If the technical was a retaliatory push, then it should've been an intentional technical (dead ball contact).

In that case, you'd shoot the FTs in the order of the fouls, right? B/c Team B is going to get possession as a result of the intentional technical.

Maybe they called the T unsportsmanlike (something was said), or maybe the editing of the clip threw off the order.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

If I were the Lead, I would give my C the first crack. If he doesn't come up with it, then I'm on it. But even in transition, we want the C to handle plays that originate on "his" side of the court. Lead can certainly grab it, but all things being equal, I'd prefer the C to have it.

Me too generally but on a play like that with huge contact it's probably better to have 2 quick and loud whistles as opposed to letting your partner have his crack at it first.

And if you watch the video again, you'll see that the C does have a whistle on the play, but Burr is so close to it that he's the one who jumps into the fray.

I would think even without blowing whoever is closest needs to get in there on that play.

BTW, did you see the whistle go into his mouth as he jumped into it? Boys & girls at home, do not do this.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

My viewer's display of this scene is rather sketchy.

It appeared that Homan perhaps hit the shooter rather solidly but it also appeared that he was going for the ball and just couldn't get that high and instead caught his arm.

The official has his 'intentional' signal before the players even come to rest.

Clark got a "T" for chest butting Homan and they shot that first. I assume the intentional foul was shot next with the ball awarded to UVA under the basket.

I can see things blew up. And that perhaps the foul (body contact) was a very solid collision. Was the contact the reason that the foul was ruled intentional? (Intentional Foul definition, 4-19-3, "if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.") And of course I'm quoting NFHS rules for an NCAA game... duh. I'm assuming NCAA's definition is quite similar.

Of course I haven't seen the tone of the game leading up to this situation but everyone sure got excited over what seemed to be just a physical play between two powerful athletes.

If we had the same play... same contact... NO MELEE afterwards... and the players just got up and went on with the game. Could this have just been called a shooting foul (incidental contact rather than intentional)?

I'm thinking that the tone of the game, previous to this incident, is what caused the official to immediately come with an "intentional" signal and what likely prompted the ensuing melee.

Someone explain a little more to me what happened.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
My viewer's display of this scene is rather sketchy.

It appeared that Homan perhaps hit the shooter rather solidly but it also appeared that he was going for the ball and just couldn't get that high and instead caught his arm.

The official has his 'intentional' signal before the players even come to rest.

Clark got a "T" for chest butting Homan and they shot that first. I assume the intentional foul was shot next with the ball awarded to UVA under the basket.

I can see things blew up. And that perhaps the foul (body contact) was a very solid collision. Was the contact the reason that the foul was ruled intentional? (Intentional Foul definition, 4-19-3, "if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.") And of course I'm quoting NFHS rules for an NCAA game... duh. I'm assuming NCAA's definition is quite similar.

Of course I haven't seen the tone of the game leading up to this situation but everyone sure got excited over what seemed to be just a physical play between two powerful athletes.

If we had the same play... same contact... NO MELEE afterwards... and the players just got up and went on with the game. Could this have just been called a shooting foul (incidental contact rather than intentional)?

I'm thinking that the tone of the game, previous to this incident, is what caused the official to immediately come with an "intentional" signal and what likely prompted the ensuing melee.

Someone explain a little more to me what happened.

Tony, IMO you are over-thinking this one.

This was simply a case of excessive contact, playing the ball or not has no bearing on whether it's intentional or not. You cannot attempt to take someone's head off and innocently claim you were playing the ball. Now add onto that the recent Artest mess, which the ncaa leadership (officials & coaches) is working hard to make sure does not happen in their game, and you can easily see why intentional or even flagrant intentional is called for.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Me too generally but on a play like that with huge contact it's probably better to have 2 quick and loud whistles as opposed to letting your partner have his crack at it first.

Fair point. I'll agree with that 100%

I would think even without blowing whoever is closest needs to get in there on that play.

I'll agree with that too; although my point was not about who "should" jump in. I was only pointing out that the C had a whistle along with the Lead.

Tony, IMO you are over-thinking this one.

This was simply a case of excessive contact, playing the ball or not has no bearing on whether it's intentional or not.

I'll take the trifecta and agree 100% with Dan again on this one.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

If I were the Lead, I would give my C the first crack. If he doesn't come up with it, then I'm on it. But even in transition, we want the C to handle plays that originate on "his" side of the court. Lead can certainly grab it, but all things being equal, I'd prefer the C to have it.

And if you watch the video again, you'll see that the C does have a whistle on the play, but Burr is so close to it that he's the one who jumps into the fray.

I did a scrimmage earlier this year and had a similar situation call in transition. Now there was no intentional or flagrant foul situation in my game, but we did have a transition play where I was the Lead on the opposite side of the ball. We had a crash with two players and I did not have a great angle and did not make a call. My partner the Center did not have a call either. Our assignor was there and ripped both of us a new one about not calling a foul. I did take the logic that the ball was on his side, but according to my assignor that was not acceptable. I was not in the best angle and I could kind of see the play, I just found myself straight-lined. So I passed on the play thinking my partner was going to pick it up. We both took heat for not calling anything.

Peace