LSU/Stanford charge (Women's)
 

Any opinions on the Charge call on Wiggins?

IMO Agustus was there initially but then threw her body into Wiggins and then, well I don't want to say flopped, but exxagerated the contact and fell to the ground (would that be the definition of a flop? :confused: ).

Again, I'm not an Elite 8 official, but JMO that maybe that could've been a no call or a Block. BTW, the Stanford player hit the 3-pointer after the crash.

I didn't have any problem with the call. She had position and minor movement is not a big deal.

I think the play was ruled correctly; however, it looked a lot less obvious to me on replay than it did at full speed.

I slow-moed it on my TiVo at it showed her right foot moving forward towards the offensive player, but then coming down onto the ground right before contact was made. But that being said, at game speed, contact was in the torso, hands were up, and it looked like she beat her to the spot. Charge.

Another thought...the PC call was made by the T. Notice that the L did not blow his whistle or make any sort of mechanic, and this was certainly close, if not w/n, a possible double coverage area. Then watch the mechanics of the T, no fist, straight into the wave-off, then punch. Close play like that, could have been a possible blarge. Thoughts?

In the past year or so I have been pregaming this type of play. The one in which A1 beats B1 with the dribble and B2 comes over to defend and there is a crash. Whose responsibility is the secondary defender?

I've stated that while one official, in this case the Trail, could have A1 and B1 in his primary when the play starts and then stay with those two players, another official, in this case the Lead, has the secondary defender, B2, in his primary the whole time. This other official is then the one watching that defender. Therefore, it makes sense that this other official would have the best knowledge of the secondary defender's positioning. Since it is this defender and not B1 who is invovled in the crash with the offensive player, I've been advocating that we let the official from whose primary the secondary defender comes make the decision on the play.

So in this case I would have prefered the Lead make the call. The Lead has the best idea of whether or not that defender got there in time. The T was focused on the dribbler and her initial defender which is no longer in the play.
That is how I have been pregaming it lately.

Of course, if the Lead doesn't make a call for some odd reason and needs help, then the T is the helper and should come get it.


Lastly, this was in an NCAA womens' game and I know that NCAAW floor coverage is different and that could have mattered on this play as the Lead is responsible for that 3pt shooter in the corner. I don't care for this, but that is the way they do it.

Nevada/TMP, I had the same thoughts on the play...it's hard for the trail to pick up that secondary defender b/c she's focused on the primary matchup involving A1/B1. I too would have like to have seen that whislte come from the lead who would have had better knowledge of Augustus' LGP.

I totally agree. At full speed this play looked like an easy charge call, so much so that I was screaming great call at the TV and preceeded to scare the crap out of my girlfriend. That's what she gets for reading in bed and not paying attention.

However on instant reply I shut up pretty quick. It looked like it may have been a block but I didn't see a great angle. I thought as a whole the crew did pretty good, if Gator gets to the final four, we should all send him a pair of shoes. :)

Nevadaref, I agree with everything you spoke of except, the lead primary coverage ends inside the 3pt line. It will be very rare for the lead to give a 3pt attempt signal if at all.

Rook, re-read Nevada's statement. He's referring to NCAA Women's coverage. The women do indeed make the Lead responsible for the 3-point area below the FT line extended.

I TIVO'ed the game and watched the play over and over. I feel that in that situation in the game (less than 5 seconds) you have to let the players decided the game. I saw Augustus falling back before contact was ever made. She obviously excentuated the contact. The lead never made an effort to make the call and the play was less than 3 feet away. Also the ball was already out of Wiggins hands before contact occurred. IMO you gotta pass on that one and let players decided the game. Certain calls have to be made at the end of a game, but I feel that this call was kicked.

JMO, but I thought it would have been a better no call. In talking with a D1 ref/friend of mine and something that I cover during pre-game, it is a general rule of thumb not to reward a player for attempting to draw a PC foul on a player that no longer has the ball. The only caveat to the play is an offensive player that is still going strong into the defense and doesn't slow/attempt to stop. I would go so far to say that is not a call that was made alot at that level.

I agree that a "no call" may have been best in this situation. In the replay you see the Lead looking dead on the play and he chose to pass.

I think this play goes directly back to the block/charge/(traveling) video thread (and Nevada's post in this thread) where I brought up the subject of primary and secondary defenders. The Lead is in perfect position to referee the defense as it applies to the secondary defender (B2). The Trail had a lot on her plate already with a very athletic A1 penetrating against tight defense from B1.

Textbook Pass and Crash
 

Lead goes with the ball. Trail picks up the crash. No?

Let's see if that official moves on. I bet she does. Gutsy call. If she passes, then LSU has the gripe.

Rare? In an NCAAW game? Lead's primary in NCAAW goes all the way to the corner.

She may move on. The parts of the game I saw were officiated very well. And in realtime that play appears to be a charge from her vantage point. My debate on this call is whether or not the Trail had the best view of the secondary defender. In the replay the Lead is staring directly at the defender in question (Ausgustus) but doesn't have a whistle.

Had the Trail decided to pass on the call she would not have been hurt by the replay. Replay clearly shows Augustus flinging her pelvis into Wiggins and then flopping to the floor.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The lead's primary ends inside the arc. The arc can be the lead's secondary. If it goes all the way into the corner you have just shorten the Trail's responsibility strong side.

Ok, here's my second attempt. Rook, Nevada and Rich are talking about NCAA Women's mechanics. And they are correct!! In NCAAW, the Lead is responsible for everything below the FT line out to the sideline on his/her side of the court. You are not correct on this. Please listen to Rich and Nevada. They know what they're talking about. Honest.

Chuck,
I am not trying to be correct on anything. I can visualize the lead taking this responsibility in 2 person. However, I cannot visualize this 3 person.

Well, I can't help you visualize it. I can only assure that it's what they do.

And as someone who earns my extra spending money doing NCAA Women's games, I can assure you that Chuck, Nevada, and Rich are correct. NCAA Women's mechanics, the L has a rectangular area of the court that extends half-way across the key, up to the free throw line, across to the SIDELINE...so a 3 pt. attempt from the corner is the L's primary and he/she signals the 3 pt. attempt!

So, deep into the corner the lead signals. I am trying to understand this is all. Does anyone have a diagram of the area of responsiblity so I can actually see this?

Another point is that the lead signals the attempt in that situation, but NOT the touchdown signal for a successful three point attempt. That is done by the lead and trail officials. Again, NCAAW only.

I don't know what a caveat is, but as I read this thread I had been thinking that this was significant, not from the standpoint of rules, but just a matter of the official's perception of the play. Had Wiggins made any attempt to stop or at least angle off the contact, thus making it less severe, perhaps we have a no call. But in this case from either official's perspective we have an offensive player that runs completely through the defender. I thought Augustus did lean away from the contact slightly, but it was still severe enough that it was not what I call a flop by any means. Having said all that, I have slept since all this happened. If/when I see this replay again, my perception may be different. Meanwhile, I thought the block call on the big girl from Duke late in the game was incorrect. She seemed to be there in time, certainly no flop in this case. You could read the Duke coach's lips: "What'd she do?"

Thanks for the effort, Chuck. He just doesn't seem to be willing or able to grasp that the NCAA women's officials chop up the court differently. Why don't they handle this in the same manner as the men--who knows? Perhaps it's NBA or WNBA influence. But the fact is that it is NOT the same and truerookie will just have to accept that. When he does, he will have learned something new.

A general rule of thumb? It is? Never heard that one before. Oh well, guess that's why I'm not a D1 guy. I have to wonder where people come up with some of this stuff. There is more than one way to play defense. 1. stay with the shooter/ don't allow that player to receive the ball or try to block the shot 2. step in and take a charge from the dribbler/passer.
Both are legitimate but different methods of playing defense. Why is it suddenly up to the official to decide which tactic the team has to use?



This one is even worse. In fact, it is such garbage that I am eagerly waiting for JR to show up and see it. I'm going to go make my popcorn now. He'll probably tell you to quit officiating and go coach. Actually, I'll tell you that myself. Ignoring fouls late in the game is not "letting the players decide the outcome." It's failing to do your job properly and screwing the offended team.

Nevada,
I have to agree with you, I have learned something new and I will continue to seek growth. I am not influenced by the NBA or WNBA. I am work hard to differentiate between the different levels. I will admit I was wrong and I accept that. I even went, as far as to look for the proper break down of the Women's game, I found it. I know the difference now. I know some on this forum may get frustrated with individuals, who does not grasp what they are saying. I am a visual learned, I have to see it, as well as, be told it. Thanks for being patience and positive with your response!!!!.

LOL. I'm not sure why, rook, but you and Nevada are simply on different wavelengths. Nevada wasn't saying that you are influenced by the NBA/WNBA. He's saying that the NCAA Women's mechanics are influenced by the NBA/WNBA. LOL. One of these days, you'll both speak the same language. :D

Chuck, I guess I took it that way. Good LOL though.

Rich, thanks

I appreciate your respect of my opinion, very classy individual you are. Your "my crap dont stink attitude" is very pleasant. Ignoring fouls late in the game is not what I said...it's what you say to make your argument stronger. I said that in late game situations that players should be allowed to decide games. It goes back about 5 weeks ago to the Sheldon Williams no call at the end of the FSU game. I thought it was a foul. There was obvious body contact, but the official chose to pass on it. Why? Situation, last 5 sec. of the game. I guess your going to call the slightly displacing hand check with 3 sec. to go in the NCAA Regional semis too huh? Get real. Augustus was leaning away from the contact (already in flop mode), not to mention the fact that the ball was already gone. This is one IMO (note to jackass MY OPINION) that could/should have been passed on.

Now my opinion......

You're wrong and I disagree completely with your philosophy.

You should call something in the last 5 seconds of a game the same way that you called it in the first 39 minutes and 55 seconds. Iow, if it's a foul all game, then it's a foul at the end. To call it any other way is ridiculous imo. And you're not letting the players decide the game either; <b>you're</b> deciding the game by not calling a foul if one occurs. Jmo, but most officials who use that "let the players decide the game" argument are officials who lack the testicular fortitude to make the tough call at the end of a game and use that argument as a cop-out.

As for the Augustus call, I didn't see it so I can't really comment. I will say that "leaning away" from the contact does <b>not</b> constitute an automatic no-call or a "flop". A defender is allowed to protect themselves....and that protection includes leaning away to lessen contact. A "flop" is <b>faking</b> a foul with little or no contact. If a defender with LGP leans away from the contact and still gets run over, that's a legitimate charge.

Again that is completely your OPINION. As for the testicular fortitude comment, you know where you can cram that. We are speaking of and to the LSU game, so if you didnt see the play or call then why open your big mouth? The L who was standing right in front of the play obiously saw the play the same way I saw it.....some contact, a little acting, and a pass that had already been made making it an away from the ball foul. The L, who's call it was, chose to pass. However, my take on you, I guess, along with the official who made the call is that you like the spotlight. You like to tweet on your whistle and make the "game changing call." Some officials like the limelight, others see more (ie. magnitude of the game, situation, severity). If Wiggins had been going to the basket in an attempt to score then yes, I could live with a charge being called at that point in a game of that magnitude. However, the ball was already in the hands of the shooter, when the contact occurred and the whistle blew. That call allowed LSU to advance. The Rutgers shooter continued with the shot and knocked it down. Please dont comment on things you havent seen. And further you too are generalizing my statement. My statement was that players should be allowed to decide games, not that it's no holds barred, anything goes in the last few sec. of a game.

OK, how about this then, seeing as I deliberately tried to stay away from name-calling in my first post?

You're a clueless jerk that doesn't know one damn thing about officiating. You also got no balls if you're afraid to blow your whistle at the end of a game.

That's my take on <b>you</b>.

Thats cute!! You tried to stay away from name calling??? LOL. Thats funny. Your idea of staying away from name calling is telling people that choose not to make a call in a certain situation that they have no testicular fortitude. Thats funny. I guess the L in the Regional Semis of the NCAA tourny has none then, buy you do.

I respect your opinion on the matter. It's obvious that by throwing around words like testicular fortitude or lack thereof that you dont respect mine. This entire post was addressing a particular call in a particular game, which you never saw. So explain why you feel the need to interject your opinion as being correct and those opposing have NO BALLS, when you have no F'in idea what we are talking about????

As for my take on YOU. You are the guy who loves the limelight. Your the one dictating the game with YOUR whistle. If there is a controversial call, YOUR the guy to make it. YOUR the guy that both coaches dislike and the fans are always yelling at. WHY?? B/c you love the attention. It's much needed b/c you sucked when you played and never received any. It's your CHANCE TO BE SEEN AND HEARD!! It's cool there are more like YOU.

I have to stop ignoring threads because of their title! :D I have heard officials say "make sure any foul is a obvious one" at the end of games. I have heard other things as well. I saw this play one time and it was something that I think needed a whistle.
So, two elite 8 officials made decisions; one decided to put air in the whistle and one decided not to. What makes you think you are right because you would do the same thing the L did? Also, yes the L in the regional might not have any balls. As soon as we realize a NCAA official isn't God we will be able to look at the games more objectively and learn.
When you talk about officials that want the limelight you are showing signs of an official who would shy away from tough calls. That isn't something you can determine by your comeback post, that is something you have to look within to discover. Sometimes the game needs a jerk in black and white (with raised hand), "I can do that!" Are you safe or are you willing to go to the edge? An official can work 127 NCAA games and still be safe! :p (couldn't resist that one).

I am assuming this post is for me. However, I'm not sure why. I 2 days ago that I thought (just MO) it was a bad call. I in no way said that I was correct. It was MO. Today, JR decided and you can see for your self exactly what he said, that my post was stupid and that it was completely wrong. Decisions just like the one made in the LSU vs. Rutgers game are made all over the country everday on things like over the back, hand checking, etc... Some officials chose to make the call and others chose to pass. Does it mean that they have "no balls." No it means that they didnt think it deserved a call.

There is a big difference between an official who likes to see his name in lights and an official affraid to make a call. The L in game we were talking about was 2 feet from the contact and chose to pass, I pressume b/c of the location of the ball at the time of contact, the situation of the game, and the overexcentuation of the charge by Augustus. The other official however saw it differently and (it was a woman, so she didnt have balls, for all you BALLS fans) made the call. Was it right or wrong?? In her eyes, it had to be made. In the L's eyes it was a no call, and I agree. Two NCAA tourny officials not agreeing on a call, imagine that. What I can assure you is that the official making the call didnt go to the locker room and tell the other that he had "no balls," unlike JR is telling me. GROW UP, I wasnt claiming nor did I ever that I was correct. I simply stated my opinion. And JR decided to start the name calling by telling me how stupid my opinion was and that I was completely wrong.

Seems to be a little heated in this thread...........

When I saw the play live, I thought it was a foul. There was a large amount of contact on the play - not a little, but a large amount of contact. I was surprised that the T made the call - but it was the right call.

As to whether I, or any other official in this forum, would have made that call - I would like to say yes, but until I am working a Regional Final and have a collision like that in the last :04 of the game, I can't say for sure....

Nate1224hoops, Jurassic Referee, and everyone else - it's great that you have opinions and a desire to share them. You shouldn't resort to the personal attacks that this has digressed into. Ultimately you both are right (to a certain extent) - one official made the call; one official didn't. Whether you would make the same judgement during the exact same situation remains to be seen.

Thats exactly what I just said. I'm glad someone understands. I said nothing until he attacked me. To beat it all he never saw the play, just wanted to tell me about testicular fortititude. I agree who's right in this situation?? Everyone. It's a subjective call, subject to person holding the whistle.

The only disagreement I have with your posts Nate is these two statements... you really don't know what was going on with the L...maybe he chose to pass, but it could also be that he was waiting to see if the T would make the call first. Since the play originated from the T's primary the L could simply have been waiting an extra beat to give the T first crack at the call. In which case, if the T doesn't call it, the L quite possibly could have stepped in with the call. T did, so L didn't have to. So to just assume that the L was not going to call anything and use that as the basis for your argument here is really a bit of a stretch for me...I am not disagreeing with your philosophy, just not sure that you can make the assumptions you have been making from this play.

Your exactly right. I only PRESUME that to be the reason that the L didnt make the call. The reason that I feel this way is b/c it is the L call. It is the L primary. The T official followed the ball being closely guarded practically to the low block to make sure no illegal contact was being made. It would be real hard for the T to do all that plus make sure that Augustus was in LGP and set to take the charge. I feel that the call was out of area, regardless of right or wrong. But your are right. However, you can't say without speculation that that is not why the L didnt blow the whistle. He may have chosen to pass on the call, but anyway I understand your point.

Team Control ??
 

Did I miss something on this play but why did LSU shoot the foul shots? If this was a team control foul, which I believe it was because the ball had clearly left the offensive players hands on the pass then the contact occurred. Wouldn't LSA get the ball a spot of the foul. Doesn't team control exists on a pass. In any event I thought Augustus took the free throws.

She did. But she received the ball on in the inbounds pass and was fouled.

Did I miss somthing on this play but why did LSU shoot the free throws. I had it as a team control foul. The ball had clearly left the offensive players hands on the pass then the charge occurred.

Doesn't team control exist on a pass and therefore LSU gets the ball at the spot of the foul. No shots. I thought Augustus took the free throws.

Did I miss somthing on this play but why did LSU shoot the free throws ? Doesn't team control exist on a pass therefore a team control foul. The ball had clearly left the offensive players hands and then the charge occurred. Should LSU have got the ball at the spot of the foul. I thought Augustus took the free throws.

Tom M., it appears your computer has a virus and keeps transmitting the same post over and over.

LSU took the ball out and Wiggins immediately committed a foul, which was her 5th. She was confused that she had fouled out, probably forgetting that she had just committed her 4th on the charging call.

Nate - please allow me to throw my .02 in. Words and phrases sometimes have different meanings depending on who is saying them, and who is hearing them. "Let the players determine the outcome" is one of those phrases. I think that, as a whole, all good officials subscribe to this statement. Now, there are indeed some officials that want and like the "spotlight" and enjoy making a call, or even making up a call, just to have the spolight on them at the end of a game, and that's a shame. But there are also those officials that want to avoid that spotlight at all costs, even to the point of not making necessary calls, just so people won't notice them as much at the end of close games. And these officials always use "I'm letting the players determine the outcome" as their excuse for not making those calls. I have met and seen enough officials in my time to know that it's usually these types of officials that use that phrase; most of the others consider this to be so obvious that it's not worth saying. Kind of like saying the sun's gonna rise in the east tomorrow. How many times have you said that recently?

Also, don't confuse testicular fortitude with wanting the spotlight; those are two different things. Making the right call at the end of a game, knowing that it may put that unwanted spotlight on you, takes guts. Too many lesser officials shy away from making the correct call because they're afraid of the spotlight. And that's NOT letting the players decide the game, that's YOU deciding the game by making or not making a call just to avoid controversy. If it's a foul or a violation at the 7:00-minute mark in the first half, it's the exact same call with 3 seconds left in a tie game, even though you know the home crowd is going to let loose with a whole bunch of expletives.

So, just in my experience, saying "let the players decide the game" is "code" for "I don't have enough guts to make an unpopular, but correct, call." Maybe that's not what you're saying, but that is what some officials hear in that statement. Again, jmo.

First, M&M, the calm that your latest post brought to this discussion was the right prescription for this thread's feva. Snaps for that.

I just skimmed this thread, but I haven't seen anything mentioned about something my roommate pointed out, but that I didn't see on the play. He said that he thought he saw the slot's fist go up on the play. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be shocking to me. The slot was Yarbrough, probably the most respected official in the women's game, and it's a play that I could see a veteran official making in that situation, given that the L passed on the play. Anybody notice this already, or have access to a replay to check?

Why did the T make the call and not the L? That seems to be the point of contention. Just maybe the reason is because they used PROPER mechanics!!!! The ball was passed into the L's primary and the L went with the ball. The T stayed with the passer who then crashed. The way you people are talking is that both officials should have been watching the crash. Hmmmm....I guess where the ball goes should be ignored..nothing ever happens there.

U da Man, JR!!! I knew I could count on you to put this pipsqueak in his place.

He still doesn't get it though. He thinks that we are on his case because he doesn't think that was a PC foul. If that is the way he feels when seeing the play, that's just fine with me. The problem is his REASON for believing that. His reason is total garbage and if he really uses that kind of justification for his officiating decisions then he has no business being a basketball official.

And Nate, whether JR saw the play or not, he can still comment on the reasoning that you posted. It is pretty clear what he thinks of that.

Lastly, you chastise JR for not seeing the play, but posting in this thread,
but you who saw the play and know everything about it can't even get the two teams who were involved correct. You have repeatedly posted Rutgers.



Funny, I don't recall seeing Rutgers play LSU in the tourney this year, and neither do you! Get it right! STANFORD was LSU's opponent in the game under discussion. Rutgers lost to Tennessee in Cleveland. Or you could follow your own advice and not comment on things you haven't seen.

PS You need some grammar lessons. The spell check can't cover for you there.

We discussed this point before in the thread.

As you clearly know, there is a difference in the mechanics between NCAAM and NCAAW. This is the type of play in which I believe that the NCAAM mechanic does better. The Lead probably has the best idea of the positioning of the secondary defender coming over in an attempt to draw the charge. The Trail had the primary defender and the ball handler. Pretty tough to also pick up the other defender at full speed. However, it is not very difficult for the Trail to switch over to the shooter in the corner and cover that play.

The Lead, in NCAAW, is torn between trying to watch two things in that official's primary on a play like this. The NCAAM just let the Trail take the shooter in the corner while the Lead focuses on the play near the block.

Glad to see that your still being an @ss, knew we could count on you for that. It's funny that two NCAA final four officials saw the play differently but b/c I think it was a bad call and you don't you want to bash. It's fine, it shows how childish you are. I felt that it was a no call, you feel differently. Sorry for the Rutgers bit, it was Stanford..oops. As for your grammar lesson that you would like to give me...I'll be sure to include ' in all my words from now on:: we're, they're, you're ...just for you. The fact that I'M an English teacher must mean I need a grammar lesson. You just keep coming with insults. IT'S obvious that you are a closed minded, NUMBNUT, but IT'S okay. I'M sure you really really CAN'T help that now can you. As far as you telling me that I that I DON'T need to be an official, well you where you can shove that. I'M sure YOU think YOU'RE much better. As too, I'M sure you think YOU'RE better than the L who passed on the call.

Maybe I didnt exactly chose the best wording by saying: "allow players to decide games," but you obviously put your own twist on to fit your argument. What was meant by that (which was all involving the call made in the STANFORD/Lsu game) is that the ball was gone from Wiggins hand, Augustus was leaning (backward away from the contact), and at that point I feel that the call could/should have been passed on. LSU was the favorite. Augustus is all world and everyone wants to see the LSU/Duke/UNC final four and well they will now.

I agree with most of what you said. My choice of words: Let players decide games, was probably not the best. It was great for a couple of IDIOTS to start bashing and telling me how incompetent an official I am. Everyone understandst the unwritten rule at the end of the game (except JR and Nevad). As far as not have balls, or testicular fortitude, I'm sure some officials don't want to make a call. And it could be for that very reason. All I am saying is that I don't think at that level the L didn't make the call b/c he lacks balls. I think he saw something else. It was his call, he knew it was his call. The T made the call and I am led to believe that the L didn't make the call b/c he chose to pass and "let it be decided by something different." Maybe that would have been a better choice of words.

Nate, I hope the bit about being an English teacher was a joke because you are still butchering the language. Just to keep a running score -

"choose" and "chose" should be used differently.
"...well you where you can shove that." - doesn't really make sense. I guess you are missing the "know."

Also, I'm of the opinion that the official could very well lack the testicular fortitude to make the call. Read below or read it here - it is what it is. If there is a call to be made, the call should be made. There was a lot of contact and a call probably should have been made either way. It doesn't seem like the media is criticizing this call very much, and we all know they now kill officials in the press, so why are some people on this board so critical of the call? There was contact and a whistle.

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

LOL. Yes, I am an English teacher at private college in Virginia. However, I didn't realize that misspelled words and the lack of proofreading was a crime, especially on an officials message forum. If you would like to keep a running score we can do that. If you would like to get into an English verbiage contest that will be fine too.

With each and every reply someone creates something new. No one said anything about the media criticizing. I simply stated about 25 posts ago that IMO (I can do this right, or should I spell it out) I think that it would have been a better no call and I stated the reasons I felt this way.

For you to hop in on the grammatical bandwagon is childdish. If it is imperitive that I use apostrophe's in the correct place and proof every word typed then maybe you can just give me your email address and I'll send it to you before I post, since you seem to have a doctorate in grammar.

I think this is the key to this thread. IMO if this happens at the 10 minute mark in the 1st half and you "let the players decide it" then why call a foul on anything in the entire game. This play probably had more contact and displacement then any other play in the entire game.

Nate, I'm sorry for busting your chops. I didn't think I JUST hopped in, but you can be the judge of that.

Can you tell us what your experience is and what level you work? Also, can you answer the question I asked before?

Would you make this call during the first 39 minutes of the game?

I think maybe you are a little confused about the NCAAW mechanics...the T did have the drive since it originated in his/her primary. The L does have the secondary defender in those situations...however, we try to have a "patient" whistle so that the T has first crack at the call. I still believe that is what happened on this play in discussion...I don't believe the L was "passing" on anything, just giving the T first crack, and then would have stepped in...if the T isn't sure, they don't call anything and the L steps in and takes it.There is nothing in the book that says the L can't make the call on the secondary defender.

You didn't just hop in the conversation. You did just hop in with the grammatical thing, which I can fix.

I have officiated V HS boys/girls for 9 years and Division 3 NCAA for 3 years.

To answer your question, yes I probably call a foul. If the exact same thing I saw happened in minute 1 of the game I would call a foul--a blocking foul on Augustus. As I said before, after watching it over and over, my take is that she wasn't in the greatest position to take the charge and it appears to me that she was falling before contact was ever made. In that sitution with 5 seconds on the clock, I am not bailing the offensive player out with a blocking call. Much like I probably would have passed on the strong hand-check that Wiggins was receiving on her way to the charge. Certain calls have to be made no matter when they occur, early or late (shooter being contacted, push in the back on rebounded....). But some things have to be much more severe in late game situations. As I said before, the entire dynamics of the play change if Wiggins is attempting to go to the basket. She had already passed the ball to the wing before contact was made. Thats my take on the play. Am I upset with the call. No. It was a very tough call to make. I've seen the replay 700 times, unfortunately the official saw it once. That however, doesn't make the call correct in everyone's eyes.

I disagree. Why would the T have first crack at the call. The ball has just entered and left the T primary. The T should have been concerned with contact made throughout his/her primary. So how could the T have seen all this plus noticed to see if Augustus was in proper position. I'm not saying that the T can't make this call, but the L should have first crack at it b/c he/she isn't following the ball as closely through the T primary and can better see if Augustus was there or not. I think the L passed on the call.

The fact that you can't spell properly coupled with the fact that you are a college english professor doesn't help getting your point across.

If I told someone that I am a math teacher but I can't figure out 20% for a tip then I am showing my a$$.

You had the ability to double check your last post and you still misspelled a number of words. The words "childdish", "imperitive" and this last one is probably the best "apostrophe's". This should NOT have an apostrophe. :rolleyes:

I hope for your sake that the English department at your college does not see this post.

Like I said when it is a requirement not to have misspelled words in a post on a message forum then get back to me. As far as my English department don't worry yourself.

I guess I'm trying to understand how an English professor would misspell these words in the first place.

Nate, you're missing the point - that <B>is</B> the T's call because those are the NCAA-W mechanics. You may disagree with the reasoning behind the mechanics, but don't say you disagree with it being the T's call, because it was. If you have trouble picturing the reasoning, think of it like this: say you are the T, and you start a 5-sec. closely-guarded count in your area. As the ball handler dribbles into the C's area, you continue to stay with the play and the count, even though it's not "in your area". This is the same reasoning behind the T staying with the drive all the way to the basket, if the drive started in T's area. It is not the same as the NCAA-M or Fed. mechanics, so you may not be aware of the differences. But it is a reason why the L did not have a call on that play, not necessarily because it was in the L's area and they passed on it.

You are right, I am not that familiar with the women's game. Your explanation is good, but I just don't understand the reasoning behind it that's all.

Nate, though this thread has meandered off course a few times since I initiated it, this is basically where I was looking for discussion to go. What is everyone's philosophy as to who should have 1st crack when a secondary defender (yes, I know, it's not an official phrase in the NFHS/NCAA rulebooks) slides in to draw a charging/PC foul in or near the lane in front of the Lead?

I subscribe to the same school of thought as you, that the Trail (or in some cases the 'C') doesn't have the best view as to initial LGP of the secondary defender and the Lead should take responsibility for that call. But others, like RockyRoad, have the philosophy that the official from where the drive initiated takes 1st crack at any resulting crash. It's a play that needs to be pre-gamed to make sure everyone is on the same page.

I guess that needs to be explained to too. There could be several reasons. Maybe I am 75 years old and my typing skills suck. That doesn't mean I can't spell. Also, notice I didn't say that I am a spelling professor. I am a professor of English/Modern Literature. Anyway back to topic...

This is where we also disagree. Let me ask you this - when does the situation change from "regular game situations" to "late game situations"? 5 minutes left? 1 minute left? 10 seconds left? Does the score matter? Where do you draw that line? Does the line change from game to game? And, most importantly, how do the players know where that line is drawn? Let's take this play for instance. At the 10 minute mark in the first half I call a charge on the Stanford player. Then at the 12 minute mark in the second half I have the exact same play happen, so I call a charge on the Stanford player. Then, with 4.8 seconds left, the exact same play happens again, only this time I let it go. Why? Just because it's a "late game situation"? How do I explain that to the LSU defender who sacrificed her body to take the charge and got rewarded the previous 2 plays, but in this case she doesn't? How do I let the players know, "Ok, we're now in that late game situation, so you're gonna need to foul harder"? Is there a signal for that?

Ok, maybe I'm a little over the top, but I hope you get the point. Consistency is very important in a game, and most players adjust. If you want to discuss whether this particular play was a charge, block, or no-call, fine. But be careful about saying you wouldn't make this call in a "late game situation".

Well, if you're 75 and a basketball ref, you're my new hero! :D

I understand exactly what you are saying. I think that most officials and players understand late game situations. I think you were a little over the top, but I know exactly what your saying. Lets say for argument sake that the call wasn't a charge but a hand check on LSU. Is this a call that your going to make?? Hands, IMO, are to much a part of defense already, but with 5 seconds on the clock and a Final Four berth at stake are you going to call the slightly displacing hand check. I have had this discussion before with some people and there are certain violation/fouls that we ignore very often. Take the UCONN/George Mason game. With 32 seconds left in the game the T official calls a palming/carrying violation. It was most likely a violation but no advantage was gained. The defender was still right in front of the offensive player. This is something that you might call in the beginning of the game to discourage it from happening for the entire 40 min. but it's not something you tweet about with 30 sec. to go and no advantage gained.

That says it all right there imo. :rolleyes:

LOL...not quite there yet!!!

Glad that does it for ya JR!! I use the word severity, you use the words advantage/disadvantage. I guess your calling the slightly displacing hand check that the LSU player so appropriately place on Wiggins hip as she drove toward the charge too huh?? Was an advantage gain?? OBVIOUSLY there was. You are making that call though...with 5 seconds left in the ELITE 8.

IMO you should not (note I did not say "can not") have a call in the last couple of mintues of the game that you did not have earlier (i.e. 3sec, illegal screen, carry, etc). That mindset certainly does not cover all situations and cannot always be taken literally.

I also think the level of contact required to call a foul is increased a little bit in late game situations vs earlier game situations. I'll call a hand check, illegal screen, block, etc. in the last few minutes, but the amount of contact or advantage gained should be more than earlier - not substantially more, but certainly more. This is a "feel" thing - it's very hard to illustrate via the written word in a chat room. The reason why the officials you see working the games on TV this time of year are there, is because they have mastered this "feel".

ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!! I do not come to this forum to view individuals (fellow officials) verbally attack each other. If you ask me, I know you are not all of you are being unprofessional for the avocation. We are all entitled to our opinions and perspectives "RESPECT" that. You may see it one way, I may see it another. All this estrogen and testostrone reference is unnecessary imo. You can state your point and move on. If someone disagrees with you, they are entitled to do that. It does not make them less of an official. We all come here because, we want to stay connected to individual who enjoys being official and learn from each other. If not, why do we come? Let not lose our focus, we must continue to discuss rules and how to apply them correctly. Good Day:D

My thoughts exactly.

Sigh...it's the NCAAW mechanic. Not a philosophy that I have...and trust me, I pre-game this thoroughly and tell my partners that if it is a secondary defender, please feel free to come in and help out. The L didn't need to come in and help out because the T made the call...why is this so hard to understand?

I agree and apologize. Careful with your grammar TR, the grammar busters are out!!!

Wrong again, Nate.

I use the word <b>"CONSISTENCY"</b>, not advantage/disadvantage!

Good try, though.

Thanks for all your insulting comments throughout this post JR. Anytime I need the ANSWER to anything I'll forget about posting and just PM you. I'm sure you are the most consistent official here and in your area as well. Well you go off an be CONSISTENT, while the rest of us try to have a conversation, without continuing the ignorance you have already polluted this thread with.

Unbelievable also.....

I disagree completely with you too. There's no "feel" at all to it. You're doing nothing but interjecting your own personal opinion into the game instead of calling the game consistently. By the last minute of the game, the players should <b>absolutely</b> know what they can do and what they can get away with. Guys like you and Nate just confuse the hell outa them instead.

And that's a complete pile of phooey too for you to claim that the officials working games on tv are slavishly following <b>your</b> own personal opinion. Heckuva way to try and add a l'il credibility to yourself, but that dog don't hunt. I got eyes too. The guys that are still working in the tournament are the ones that have the best judgement <b>and</b> are consistent, not the one's swallowing their whistles at the end of a tight game. That's my opinion.

Depends. Did we as a crew make that call on a similar play earlier in the game? If we did, than it needs to be called now. If we passed on that similar contact earlier, than we should pass on it now as well. If this is the first time we saw that contact all game (not likely, but possible), then we/I need to make the decision on whether to call the foul. I did not see most of that game, so I can't tell you if the crew was consistent in hand check calls, or in other block/charge calls. So I can't say if it was a good no-call on the hand check. But I do know hand-checking is a POE in NCAA-W, so I would have some explaining to do to my supervisor if we had called it early in the game, then let it go at that point.

Similarly, you mentioned the palming violation called late in the Geo. Mason/UCONN game. Had there been any other palming calls made during that game? Palming/carrying is a POE this year for NCAA-M; is there a caveat mentioned on only calling it if there's a clear advantage gained? If not, what would your explanation be for your supervisor when they ask why you let it go at that important point in the game?

There was nothing insulting at all in my post. I corrected the completely false impression that you tried to establish in your post by putting <b>your</b> words into <b>my</b> mouth. Not once have I talked about advantage/disadvantage. I'm talking about calling the game <b>CONSISTENTLY</b>!

Nate, my opinion of you hasn't changed from my previous analysis. If anything, you've confirmed it. You don't have a clue when it comes to officiating, and you don't have a clue as to what myself or anybody else has been trying to tell you.

I ref some JuCo ball, and in every one of those games my crew chief (and most times the other umpire) has been a NCAA official. Not to say I disagree or agree, but on every occassion where we've had potential last possession game winning/tying situation I've heard words from my crew chiefs to the effect of "let's not have any cheap fouls", "make sure it's a foul", etc. I also have been to a college camp in the Southeast where the subject of last-second game-changing plays was discussed and the speaker touched on foul calls and there being a degree of certainty (i may be a little off on the terminology) needed before you blow your whistle.

So we can't ignore that there is a school of thought being espoused by some high-level officials that there is a difference between a call you would make at the 7-minute mark of the game and one made at the 39:53 mark of the game.

Whether you agree or don't agree is one thing, but let's not act like that philosophy does not exist.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't think that you're fully understanding what I've been trying to say either. And I think that M&M has basically been saying the same thing.

Nobody wants to see a cheap foul called at the end of the game. It sureasheck <b>should</b> be a good foul if you're gonna call one then. But.....you should be making the exact same determination at the 7-minute mark as you do at the 39-minute mark- i.e. was it a righteous foul <b>both</b> times? If it isn't, then you shouldn't be calling it at the 7-minute mark either.

That's the "school of thought" and philosophy being espoused by some high-level officials imo. It's only "game-changing" if you call something that has been consistently let go up to then, or if you ignore something that has been called consistently up to then.

I understand your point and follow clearly. No there hadn't been any other palming violations called in the UNCON game and no advantage was gained, but it was palming.

I have heard from many a veteran-partner that towards the end of a tight game, "make sure you have a solid call". The calls do change in the last few minutes of a tight game - maybe that's a new trend (not enough experience here to know). So long as you are consistent with that philosophy on both ends of the court, what's the problem?

This thread keeps trying to return to something civil - why some of you try to fight that is tough to figure out. :confused:

It isn't insulting to tell someone that they suck and are dead wrong. HMMMM. If we had moderators this is probably where they woulda come in. LOL. Or maybe after you told me that I have no balls to make late game calls. Sounds insulting to me. I think I pegged YOU also.

Well since I work HS games with some officials who work NCAA-W and some who work NCAA-M and some who work neither, it's something that needs to be pre-gamed. That's my point. Did I imply that you didn't ? Just b/c you thoroughly pre-game it doesn't mean everyone else on this forum does.

My point is officials come into games with different philosophies/mechanics. I worked a girls' regional HS play-off game with 2 members of another board who both work NCAA-W and guess what happened at the end of the 1st quarter. We had no whistle to kill the quarter because I was the C, but tableside, and the trail, opposite table, was thinking about the NCAA-W mechanic instead NFHS. But I blamed myself immediately b/c I was the "R" and I knew I was working with 2 NCAA-W officials and I forgot to cover last second shot responsibilities in my pre-game.

BTW Rocky, the Sigh... and...why is this so hard to understand? were unnecessary.

Most officials would agree with this philosophy IMO. Some officials just don't like to admit it. Thought process of players change in the final seconds of play. They know if the games tied and they are in the bonus that they should take it hard to the bucket. Officials also know this are aren't going to give that whistle quite so quickly.

[QUOTE=jkjenning] The calls do change in the last few minutes of a tight game - maybe that's a new trend (not enough experience here to know). So long as you are consistent with that philosophy on both ends of the court, what's the problem?

QUOTE]

The problem with that philosophy is the fact that you are now allowing player A42 (just an example) to get away with the exact same thing that you sat B50 down at the 13:42 mark with his/her fourth foul...you don't see that as an issue??

Things have changed around here. It's anything goes. It isn't about helping each other understand things, it's about I'm right-you're wrong and you're an @ss for have an differing opinion.

Oh, ok...but the highlighting my name and saying it was my philosophy were ok with you?

And as for your playoff game, it wasn't your fault...those two partners need to be able to remember what level they are working and which mechanics are being used that night. If they can't remember that it's a NFHS game tonight, then shame on them.

Wasn't meant to be an insult, just an illustration that you are viewing the Stanford/LSU play with one set of eyes (whether it's based on mechanics, philosophy, or past experience is really of no consequence) and Nate was viewing with another. Your post was actually the best argument/explanation I read backing the Trail having a whistle, that's why I used you as an example.

I'm guessing 99% of the forum is not Elite 8 level, but seeing and discussing the different plays these Elite 8 officials are involved in then hearing different opinions and philosophies (they may be mechanic-based, but still IMO philosophies) will hopefully help each one of us when faced with similar plays in the future.

And yes, my partner should have remembered, but with officials jumping back and forth between different mechanics and rules, it's forsee-able that is could happen. Therefore, I felt I should have reminded my partners about last-shot responsibilities.

OK, try this on for the sake of consistency. The game changes on a continual basis. Substitutions, style of play, score, foul count etc. How about a situation where players are getting frustrated and are starting to get chippy. Most of the crews I have had the priviledge of working with, will address it by saying we need to tighten it up. So according to you they are not being consistent because they have had to change the way the game needs to be called.

What if a team is fouling to get back into the game? You are definitely not calling the same contact late as you did early. We are charged with judging contact within the context of the game at that particular moment.

We have all been in games similar to the situation here and dealt with it differently. If the teams have been killing each other all night, we might make a call with slightly less contact, if the teams have been playing great all night, we might let more contact go.

Gotcha...my bad. Just seems like it was explained back on page 3 or so and then keeps coming back up...oh well.

And to Nate1224, not once have I called anyone an a$$ or any other name in this thread, so don't use me as your example.

What's not being understood here is that by saying that your trying to stay consistent you are already admitting that your not. I agree with you completely. How often do you see games that start out with tic-tac fouls and eventually loosen up..or just the opposite. Officials are adapting to styles of play and that won't always allow you to call the first 10 minutes like you do the last 10, much less the last 10 seconds.

Where did I say anything at all like that?:confused:

You're talking about different circumstances and situations completely.

Answer me this one.....after you "tighten up", is it then OK to "loosen up" on the very last play of the game? Or should you stay "tightened up"?

Nope not you. Didn't mean to appear to use you as an example. SORRY. It's just that some of us are explaining our OPINIONS and some of us are imposing our opinions. Sorry again wasn't at all meaning you.

Possibly. Suppose this: at the 15 min. mark of the first half you have two teams that are getting rough. Lots of talking and nonsense going on after the play. You speak to the players about cleaning it up. You come together with your crew and decided that by calling it tighter, the problem will take care of itself. You finish out the rest of the half with no problems and continue into the second half. If play has settled down, would it then be wrong to loosen back up a little????

You were the one who brought up consistency. As far as different situations, end of game situations are different than the rest of the game.

Answer: If we have been calling it tight in those moments before the last play of the game, we stay there.