What do you have???

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Tio

Block on the crash. Defender was not set when offensive player began shooting motion.

Sigh. Despite all the effort that some of us have put into this thread and many others, folks such as this continue to use fantasy standards to judge plays instead of the real rules.

Perhaps he can serve as an example of how not to do it and others can learn something from his errors.

I wonder if he went to the same "pro" training as btaylor.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Are you from Southern California?

No but Greg Louganis is my neighbor if that helps.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Let me rephrase it for you.... Have you ever called a foul from the "C" position on an offensive player while he/she was trying go over/thru a defensive player while they were blocking out? This play is typically in every contest and is usually brought on after a missed shot attempt.

I've been told this call should be made by the "C" and was wondering if you agree?

The C would be in poor position to make such a call because of his straight-line positioning. If this play were rebounding action, he should have moved topside (up towards the top of the key and out onto the floor a step or two pretending as if he were the Trail). That positioning would give him the proper angle to see contact between the players. Any call from his current positioning is just going to be a guess.

BTW if you believe that the "rebounder" in white should be penalized for a foul on your hypothetical play, then doesn't that mean that you believe that he is responsible for the contact? So why would you penalize his opponent and reward his similar action when he is trying for goal? Just a point to consider.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Let me rephrase it for you.... Have you ever called a foul from the "C" position on an offensive player while he/she was trying go over/thru a defensive player while they were blocking out? This play is typically in every contest and is usually brought on after a missed shot attempt.

I've been told this call should be made by the "C" and was wondering if you agree?

"I hope that Final Four career is going to works out for you. " - JRut

Seems to be going well. I'm ahead of schedule so I'm pleased.

If you are so ahead of schedule, then why are you arguing an insignificant point online? You should be like "Bhuck Elics" and not be around here in the first place. But I digress.

Since you insist on telling me what should or should not be called. I have made foul calls from the C, but there is much more contact than that and the contacting players do not fall to the ground in two separate places. And they really do not fall in two separate places when there is significant contact. And as I said, to me it looks clearly as if there was a flop by the defender which reduced any real contact and the shooter was surprise that he did not just run into the defender, which is why he fell front first (but you seemed to cannot see that on the video).

Peace

[Tio]

It was a block. The defender moved laterally into the path of the dribbler and created contact.

Is that better?

This board must be full of English majors.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

This board must be full of English majors.

I said I'm trying to quit.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you are so ahead of schedule, then why are you arguing an insignificant point online? You should be like "Bhuck Elics" and not be around here in the first place. But I digress.

Since you insist on telling me what should or should not be called. I have made foul calls from the C, but there is much more contact than that and the contacting players do not fall to the ground in two separate places. And they really do not fall in two separate places when there is significant contact. And as I said, to me it looks clearly as if there was a flop by the defender which reduced any real contact and the shooter was surprise that he did not just run into the defender, which is why he fell front first (but you seemed to cannot see that on the video).

Peace

My status as on official has nothing to w/ debating this play.

Players landing on top of each other should be a factor on if I have a foul? or the severity of a foul? I've never heard of that reasoning.

I'm also of the belief that if the defender flops and causes any contact at all then I'm going to bang him for a foul on a play like this.

On the video I see contact and that's why he fell on his front side. I also clearly noted the defenders position and how he moved into the path of the shooter. I guess you choose not to see that part so clearly, but other parts you see just fine.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The C would be in poor position to make such a call because of his straight-line positioning. If this play were rebounding action, he should have moved topside (up towards the top of the key and out onto the floor a step or two pretending as if he were the Trail). That positioning would give him the proper angle to see contact between the players. Any call from his current positioning is just going to be a guess.

BTW if you believe that the "rebounder" in white should be penalized for a foul on your hypothetical play, then doesn't that mean that you believe that he is responsible for the contact? So why would you penalize his opponent and reward his similar action when he is trying for goal? Just a point to consider.

I understand your point about the contact if the situation were reversed, but I believe the difference is that he was on a direct path for the goal.

As far calling a foul from the "C" position goes I was merely trying to point out the fact that I personally call the offensive rebounder for this foul during games. It would be impossible in most cases to only call the foul if you can't see space between their bodies. Just not possible to get that positioning on a consistent basis.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

On the video I see contact and that's why he fell on his front side. I also clearly noted the defenders position and how he moved into the path of the shooter. I guess you choose not to see that part so clearly, but other parts you see just fine.

You're right, we just don't see it as clearly as you do. :shrug:

BTW, I still say that even if I'm wrong, the fact that this play is so close makes a no-call entirely appropriate.

I do not mean if a play is 51-49 between block and charge that a no-call is ok. I mean that if a play is 51-49 between block and no-call, a no-call is acceptable.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I understand your point about the contact if the situation were reversed, but I believe the difference is that he was on a direct path for the goal.

As far calling a foul from the "C" position goes I was merely trying to point out the fact that I personally call the offensive rebounder for this foul during games. It would be impossible in most cases to only call the foul if you can't see space between their bodies. Just not possible to get that positioning on a consistent basis.

I agree that from a game management standpoint, this play needs a whistle. No calls on plays like this is the reason rough play has been a point of emphasis for 35 years. :>

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

My status as on official has nothing to w/ debating this play.

I cannot speak for everyone else, but it does for me. When you keep debating points like "I broke down the tape" and you are not even seeing that someone with experience might have seen similar plays and come to a different take than you have, then your status as an official means something to me. Because if you are just a JV official trying to debate this with official that have worked levels you have not achieved, what you have worked does matter to me. It tells me what you know and what you might not know at all.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Players landing on top of each other should be a factor on if I have a foul? or the severity of a foul? I've never heard of that reasoning.

I never said it was a reasoning for a foul or not a reasoning for a foul (which goes back to my point above BTW). I said those were indications to me that there was little or no contact. And if there was little or no contact, the fact the player fell hard would not make me call a foul automatically.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I'm also of the belief that if the defender flops and causes any contact at all then I'm going to bang him for a foul on a play like this.

A flop is to exaggerate the contact and convince the official of something illegal. It does not mean they were the cause for the contact. I guess that illustrates the reason why people here are giving you crap for your rules knowledge on this in my opinion. Notice I have not once brought up what the rule is or should be. I am only talking about the judgment of the play.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

On the video I see contact and that's why he fell on his front side. I also clearly noted the defenders position and how he moved into the path of the shooter. I guess you choose not to see that part so clearly, but other parts you see just fine.

That is why we get paid the big bucks right? And there is a reason why some people make it to the Final Four and others do not. If you are right and the people you work for feel you are right (or wrong) that is all that matters. It does not matter what we say on an officiating board and what you think you saw. Unlike you though, I trust the official in the video much better than what I "think" I see and I also trust my own experiences, because I have seen similar plays in my career and seeing a player fall hard to the ground.

Peace

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Tio

I agree that from a game management standpoint, this play needs a whistle. No calls on plays like this is the reason rough play has been a point of emphasis for 35 years. :>

This sums up my feelings about this play.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot speak for everyone else, but it does for me. When you keep debating points like "I broke down the tape" and you are not even seeing that someone with experience might have seen similar plays and come to a different take than you have, then your status as an official means something to me. Because if you are just a JV official trying to debate this with official that have worked levels you have not achieved, what you have worked does matter to me.

You're assuming that I am somehow less experienced. You're also saying that you can't learn anything from an official who is not at your level. Very, very sad.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It tells me what you know and what you might not know at all.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A flop is to exaggerate the contact and convince the official of something illegal. It does not mean they were the cause for the contact. I guess that illustrates the reason why people here are giving you crap for your rules knowledge on this in my opinion. Notice I have not once brought up what the rule is or should be. I am only talking about the judgment of the play.

I know that I showed obvious factual still shots on how the defender moved into the path of the offensive player. How you can dispute this is beyond me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I understand your point about the contact if the situation were reversed, but I believe the difference is that he was on a direct path for the goal.

First of all, it's debatable. It looks to me as if he's jumping to the side of B1 to try to get by him for the shot.

Second of all, it's irrelevant; unless you can find the rule that changes things when the shooter is "on a direct path for the goal."

Originally Posted by mu4scott

As far calling a foul from the "C" position goes I was merely trying to point out the fact that I personally call the offensive rebounder for this foul during games. It would be impossible in most cases to only call the foul if you can't see space between their bodies. Just not possible to get that positioning on a consistent basis.

Bull. If you can't see actual contact, you don't make the call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

You're assuming that I am somehow less experienced. You're also saying that you can't learn anything from an official who is not at your level. Very, very sad.

It is not about my level, it is about your level. Officials that have done a lot do not argue the points you do (in my experience) and keep talking as if they saw everything on tape. Rather than asking yourself (like I have done and others have done) did the official see something we could not see on the tape? And you have made it clear that not only was there a foul, that what you saw was the only thing that could have happen. This either shows little experience on your part, or a complete willingness to respect other's opinions. I have never said what should or should not be called. I have always stood by the fact I personally did not see what you saw and based on the information I would “likely” (which means without further information) not call anything. And it is sad to me that if you were so big-time, you would know that the official had a much better angle then we did on this tape. You have not once even acknowledged that in any way. I went to 3 camps where some of the best officials in the Midwest and parts of the south (and you could say country) evaluated me and many others. When they disagreed with a call we made, most of the time they asked "What did you see?" And they let us answer because they wanted to know if we saw the same thing that they did. And in most cases they also deferred to the official making the call, while saying what they "think" they saw on the play. Now why could officials that work the NCAA Tournament (and in some cases the Final Four and Championship games) have enough sense to know they did not have the best angle, but you are a wannabe Final Four official (that includes me and others here I am sure) know more than everyone else here?

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I know that I showed obvious factual still shots on how the defender moved into the path of the offensive player. How you can dispute this is beyond me.

If I was observing a game from that angle, there is no way I would say what you claim to see as "factual." Then again, that is why you are lost for words about something you clearly do not have the experience in doing. You must not observe officials like I do and I want more information than just an angle on a blurry video. And usually you get that information by asking the official that had the best angle. Now if you can get that official to come forward and tell us what he saw, I might have a different take. But until than, it looks like little to no contact and not something I think needed to be called a foul. And certainly not something that needed to be called because a player fell hard to the floor (another flawed point of view in my opinion).

Peace