BU v SIU tournament game...

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Joe, when I first looked at this I saw no intent at all. Not even a hint. But I looked at it again when someone else said it was done on purpose, and I agree it looked that way on replay. But at first viewing it looked innocent and I gotta give the benefit to the official on the floor who made the decision to do it over. He only got 1 view in real time in a real high pressure spot and I think he handled it perfectly.

You're absolutley right, and that's why you, me and probably 99% of us on here would've made the same call that was made..

[Raymond]

Looking at the play live-action there is no way to deduce that Tatum intentionally contacted the Bradley player. But watching the replay a few times I think it's quite clear what Tatum did was intentional. But we don't officiate via YouTube. On the spot, when it was time to make a decision, I believe the official made the most common sense choice.

It's funny, I sent the link to a 23 year-old friend of mine who is already a ref in a D1, a D2, and two D3 conferences. He grew up in Missouri with Tatum and my friend sent back an email saying it's old playground trick he taught Tatum back in elementary school...LOL

What's interesting is that b/c of the whistle, in NCAA-Men's ball SIU could have brought defensive subs in but in NCAA-Women's ball no subs would have been allowed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

Dan, if you would replay that video a couple of times, study the offensive player. Look at the offensive player only.. Here's what I see, player falls to the ground, players eyes on playing court at all time, sees the ball about to be inbounded, player then darts up, side steps and throws his chest into B1. Damn, he even hesitated for a slight second before he threw his chest into the man. Then when the official blows his whistle, he still has his hands in the air with that dumba$$ "i didn't do it" look that we've all seen several times over our careers.

I've looked at about 10 times and I'm trying to give the player the benefit of the doubt, but the more I look at it, the more it looked intentional. It just didn't happen that way.

Part of our job as officials is to call what obvious to everyone watching and participating in the game. You are trying to now read minds as to why a player is doing what they are doing. You also have shown no interpretation that this is the only way to go. You even have to explain why you feel this was the wrong call in great detail. Do not be a rulebook official where you find one line in a rulebook to make a decision that is at best questionable.

Peace

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Part of our job as officials is to call what obvious to everyone watching and participating in the game. You are trying to now read minds as to why a player is doing what they are doing. You also have shown no interpretation that this is the only way to go. You even have to explain why you feel this was the wrong call in great detail. Do not be a rulebook official where you find one line in a rulebook to make a decision that is at best questionable.

Peace

My argument isn't what the call was, it is that people insist that poor little Tatum just happened to bump into the Thrower on his way back to the playing court. I've also stated that I agree with the call made. Since, I have current access to the video, and I've replayed it several times, I've formed my opinion on young Mr. Tatum's intent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

My argument isn't what the call was, it is that people insist that poor little Tatum just happened to bump into the Thrower on his way back to the playing court. I've also stated that I agree with the call made. Since, I have current access to the video, and I've replayed it several times, I've formed my opinion on young Mr. Tatum's intent.

As Dan said, the official did not have the benefit of several replays or the angle in which that we have. The official was standing right there and had one chance to get the call. I do not buy that is "had to be intentional" because I think the player was just trying to get onto the court. For all we know he might have been running to a spot on the court where he was supposed to be or towards a player he was guarding. I think you can also find what you want in the replay. Now that is not how we officiate in the real world. We call what we see and what is obvious. Calling something based on a very obscure situation we read in the rulebook is not good officiating. The fact that we are having this debate shows how much of a judgment call this is and what you might see as clear is not so clear to even more people.

Peace

[JohnBark]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

As Dan said, the official did not have the benefit of several replays or the angle in which that we have. The official was standing right there and had one chance to get the call. I do not buy that is "had to be intentional" because I think the player was just trying to get onto the court. For all we know he might have been running to a spot on the court where he was supposed to be or towards a player he was guarding. I think you can also find what you want in the replay. Now that is not how we officiate in the real world. We call what we see and what is obvious. Calling something based on a very obscure situation we read in the rulebook is not good officiating. The fact that we are having this debate shows how much of a judgment call this is and what you might see as clear is not so clear to even more people.

Peace

Rut, I agree!!! Well done!!! And well said!!!

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

You're absolutley right, and that's why you, me and probably 99% of us on here would've made the same call that was made..

JRut... I think I posted this to Dan earlier... Get off nutz...

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

JRut... I think I posted this to Dan earlier... Get off nutz...

That should read MY NUTZ!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

This is the one that I was hoping no one would bring up.

[BillyMac]

NFHS Rules: Offensive player is preparing to inbound the ball. Defensive player crosses the boundary and fouls the inbounder. The call, in this specific case, would be an intentional foul, and a warning that counts toward the four delay situations.

The only thing different about this play is that the defender is already legally out of bounds. My best guess: Intentional foul. I could live with this call, but I'm not sure that the NFHS Rule Book would back me up 100%.

[Nevadaref]

I would have to judge it this way, if the play had occurred inbounds would I have called a foul or a travel?

If I say foul, then this is an intentional personal foul.
If I say travel, then I handle it as the official did in the game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The only thing different about this play is that the defender is already legally out of bounds. My best guess: Intentional foul. I could live with this call, but I'm not sure that the NFHS Rule Book would back me up 100%.

NFHS rule 10-3-6(a) would back you if you called a "T". It's that or a re-set imo.