[QUOTE]Originally posted by eroe39

Quote:

I did not see the play you are talking about. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding me. As I stated in my original post a foul should be called if the contact is violent even if the ball is blocked first. The play I am referring to is when the contact is not severe after the ball is initially blocked.

But the play we're talking about did not involve severe contact, by any stretch. It was slight contact, after a clean block. The contact was slight, but was enough to knock the shooter to the floor. The play I'm talking about from the Kentucky/Duke game was exactly the same as Tony described in his last game situation. Exactly. And it resulted in a foul, not a no-call.

Quote:

BasketBallRef said the contact was hard down low on the shooter after the block so maybe Andre felt the contact was severe and warranted a foul or maybe he just missed the play.

First, I think you mis-read TH's post. The contact was not severe and I don't think anything in TH's posts suggests that it was. Just to be sure, I'll go back and re-read the thread, tho.

Second, there's no way that a person with sight could consider the contact to be severe. You and crew have both said "maybe he got it wrong". But he didn't. He got it right. You can say maybe all day, but he got it right.

Quote:

I can assure you Andre shares my feelings on not calling fouls after the ball is initially blocked if the contact is not severe as I have worked with him and been to his camps.

With all respect, you cannot assure me of that. I don't know you from Adam. For all I know you could just be a name-dropper who likes to sound important. I'm not saying that you are; but I have no way of knowing that you're not.

If you know him, do me a favor and give him a call. And without telling him why specifically, ask him if you could give his phone number to a young guy hoping to move up and hear his philosophy, which is actually true. As part of that conversation, I'd love to ask him if he'd like that call back. I'd bet a whole lot of money that his answer would be 'no'. If he says you can give me his number, email it to me at [email protected].

Thanks,

Chuck

Chuck, I went back and read BasketballRef's quote on the g.p.s.4 posting. He said there was lots of contact on the shooter, not hard contact as I quoted him so I want to apologize to you and BasketballRef for the misquote. However, the same thing is suggested. You say there was slight contact and he says there is lots of contact. To me, this goes to show that every referee views plays a little differently. Andre might of viewed this play as BasketballRef did and thought to himself that is a lot of contact and thus called a foul. You might call these blocked shot plays a little tighter than me. That's fine. I just hope you feel that once the ball is blocked more should be allowed after the block than normal. No two officials have the exact same viewpoint on play calling. Even NBA officials disagree on plays. The NBA has a website available to the NBDL and NBA officials that shows different plays, most of them being tough 50-50 plays. There are several occasions when some officials say to call a foul and others say to pass. Maybe this Duke play was a tough 50-50 play.
As for me to call Andre and ask him to let you have his phone number, get serious Chuck. You really think I am going to call him up and say that some offical I correspond with on a website wants to talk to you about your philosophy on blocked shots. I know Andre only on a referee level, not on a social level. That would not be a phone call I would feel comfortable with.

Hey, you said you could assure me. That's pretty much the only way that you could assure me that you and he share the same philosophy. I did not honestly think that you would be willing to make such a call. (I would not be either.) But if you had, I would've been much more willing to take your comments seriously.

Chuck

gentleman, the play last night when williams drives to the hole is a NO CALL. By the way, did anybody notice that the slot didn't have a whistle. The lead, opposite the lane, had the call. Do you guys think he had a good look coming across the lane and looking through two players backs???!!!That's why that's is the slot's play to live and die with.

[Edited by bpf on Dec 19th, 2001 at 11:55 PM]

Actually, it was called a foul. ;) You apparently agree with crew and Eli. That's fine. I think you're wrong.

Quote:

By the way, did anybody notice that the slot didn't have a whistle. The lead, opposite the lane, had the call.

Actually, I did notice that the Lead took the call, as opposed to the C. I can't be sure if the C cracked the whistle or not, but I'm assuming that if he had, he would've been the one to report the foul to the table. I agree, that it's the C's primary.

However, it's very possible that they pre-gamed this exact situation. I've had partners tell me that when we have a play like this, where we both have an eye on it, that the primary takes the ball and the secondary takes the bodies. I'm not sure how common this is, but it certainly happens. If this crew used that procedure, then the result is exactly as we would expect. C officiates the blocked shot, which is clean, so no whistle. The L is watching the bodies and has the bump which knocks the shooter down.

Quote:

Do you guys think he had a good look coming across the lane and looking through two players backs???!!!

Honestly, yeah, I think he had a pretty darn good look. He wasn't stuck wide on the opposite side. He had already closed down to the lane line and was moving toward the play when the contact occurred. I can't say whether or not he was looking thru the backs of the defenders. But he had just as good a look as the C. Well, I won't go that far. But he had almost as good a look as the C.

It was a good call, and I'm very disappointed that all the guys who want to give advice about moving up are saying that it wasn't.

Chuck

ok, I have this play on tape so I might have a disadvantage here:)

Fact: The slot did not have a whistle on the play.
So if that is indeed his primary why does the lead have a whistle in his secondary when the slot doesn't? Shouldn't an official only go into his/her secondary when the play is obvious and must be called? I'm sure the slot is a qualified official as well, since he was assigned the Duke/Kentucky game. So if, as you say, he had a better look, why shouldn't we trust him to take that play??

One other thing. You are right the block is clean. Just because williams goes down though doesn't mean it was the defenders fault. Wiliams jumped into two guys leading with his shoulder and created all the contact. How can we punish a defender for this? If I'm a college coach and I continue to see plays such as this I just tell my kids to wait until 5 seconds left, drive to the hole out of control, and jump into somebody so we can go to the line.:)

Or do the stars at the D1 level get the benefit of the doubt, just like the NBA??????

Nobody should get the benefit of the doubt on any level and to imply that it happens on the NBA level is absurd.

I think I answered this question already. It's possible that the C was officiating the blocked shot, which was clean. So he had no whistle. And that the L was officiating the body contact, which knocked the shooter to the floor, so he did have a whistle. I've been in this exact situation, personally. (Well, not exact. It wasn't Kentucky/Duke. . .)

Quote:

Just because williams goes down though doesn't mean it was the defenders fault.

Very true. We try to teach this to newer guys. Not all contact is a foul. If the defender is within his vertical plane, even if he's off the floor, then the contact is the shooter's responsibility. Excellent point. But. . .

Quote:

Wiliams jumped into two guys leading with his shoulder and created all the contact.

Nuh-uh. The shooter jumped toward the basket, out of his vertical plane. That's true. But the second defender came from in front of the basket and jumped into the shooter's path. There's no way that he was within his vertical plane. If you jump into the path of the airborne shooter, and there's contact, and he falls to the floor, there's no way you can say that the defense is being unfairly penalized.

Quote:

Nobody should get the benefit of the doubt on any level and to imply that it happens on the NBA level is absurd.

Oh man, woooooooooo-hoooooooo!! Oh, that's a good one. Thanks for adding some levity to the thread. I mean, "to imply that it happens in the NBA. . ." bwahahahahaha!! I can't even finish the sentence without laughing. It's absurd!! AAAAAAAAaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaahahahahahaha !!! Oh man. Lemme print this one out. . .

What? You mean you were serious? You mean. . . naw, c'mon! Jordan never got a phantom call on a posterific drive? Malone doesn't take 22.8 seconds to shoot a free throw? Iverson's crossover was legit all along? The rookie sub who comes in with 4 minutes left in a blow out doesn't always get a foul called on him within the next 2 possessions? Officials don't give the foul to the "other" guy instead of giving the star player his 4th in the first half?

I coulda sworn all those things happened at one time or another. I guess I was wrong on that too. Darn. I'll never move up. I just don't know how to call a game :(

Chuck

Chuck,
I'm going to resist every desire I have to tell you what I would really like to tell you and just comment on some things.

We were initially talking about a college play. Why do you some people on this board all ways have to bring the NBA into it and how NBA officials call games? There is certainly a difference in how an NBA game is officiated and how a game on another level is officiated, and that difference is the NBA game is officiated better. They are the best officials in the world and you are questioning if they cheat??!!

By the way, I think those guys have a lot more to focus on and manage then if Malone takes 10 or 11 seconds to shot a free throw.

Hey, tell me whatever you want. That's why the board is here. That's why I can make totally silly comments about the NBA, which I didn't bring up, by the way. You're not going to hurt my feelings. And the people who are on this board regularly know what good advice is and what's not. So say what you want, and let the people who read it sort it out.

Quote:

We were initially talking about a college play. Why do you some people on this board all ways have to bring the NBA into it and how NBA officials call games? They are the best officials in the world and you are questioning if they cheat??!!

Just for the record, I didn't bring up the NBA, ok? I was only making a joke about the comment that you posted. Secondly, just today, I posted on McGriff's board that the NBA officials are the best. I don't think there's any argument about that from anybody. That's why they're there, and you and I are posting to a discussion board. :)

And while I would never, ever accuse an NBA official of cheating, it's a documented fact that NBA officials often try to help the star players stay in the game. Remember two years ago, when an NBA ref got in hot water by commenting to a player "I know it was [star player]'s foul, but you've only got one"? Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?

And can you seriously deny that Jordan, particularly in his dynasty years was treated differently than other players by the officials? You can't. Travels, palming, offensive fouls (Finals against Utah, anyone?) are all just a little tougher to call on Michael than on Derrick Coleman.

I'm not saying anything new here. The only new thing I've heard on the subject is that it's (hold on, while I stop giggling) "absurd" to think that some players get preferential treatment. You made my day, really. Thanks.

Quote:

By the way, I think those guys have a lot more to focus on and manage then if Malone takes 10 or 11 seconds to shot a free throw.

Like what, exactly? Is there a sub at the table? Is Shaq's size 28 big toe over the lane line? How many F-bombs has Rasheed dropped tonight? Come on, it's counting to 10. They don't do it, b/c nobody in the world wants to see a FT violation; even tho everybody in the world knows that he commits the FT violation on every single FT he takes.

Am I smug, silly, maybe disrespectful? You bet. I'm the most sarcastic guy you ever want to meet. Please understand it's nothing against you personally, ok? I'm poking fun and trying to get a cheap laugh. But the underlying fact, under all the cheap jokes and sarcasm, is that you're wrong. I'm just trying to say it in a humorous way.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Dec 20th, 2001 at 02:16 PM]

Chuck, everybody is going to disagree with me but I thought your last two postings were excellent and I wish I had made them. Of course everybody is going to say that us IAABO guys stick together, but that is not relavent here. You hit the nail right on the head.

Oh, great. Thanks a lot, Mark. Now you've just painted a bull's-eye on my chest!!

Chuck

(P.S. - that was sarcasm. See, it's supposed to be hilariously funny. I'm not really being disrespectful to Mark. It sort of conjures up images of "Bummer of a birthmark, Hal" from the Far Side comic strip.)

Ah,you IAABO guys always stick together!
-Mark T.-"I'll stick you forever,Chuckie!".
-Chuck E.-"the feelings mucilage,Mark honey".:D:

maybe this would help
 

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on this board recently as to when posts are meant to be tongue-in-cheek, or sarcastic, or just kidding.

I suggest everyone take advantage of the smilies to indicate their intent.

You know, like this: :(

Er, I mean like this: ;)