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

Rut, first off, as one of the elder statesmen on this board, I have a lot of respect for your game.

I however, strongly disagree with some of your opinions. First off, the new lead is WAY out of position to officiate the crash. Regardless of the judgment on the play, this is where the problem lies. Even if you get this call right, your believability will take a severe hit based on the official's position.

I also think this play needs a whistle. If in your judgment, the defender flopped, that sounds like an easy block. The offensive player hits the ground HARD and the official and a team mate needs to help him up.

But in the end, this is just a stupid board and getting this play right on the court is a easier said than done.

I'll be honest, the fact that you tried to define "incidental contact," a common term when discussing plays like this, with a dictionary rather than the rule book is a sign of inexperience. At the very least, it displays a lack of rules awareness that is surprising for someone aspring to officiate an NCAA Final Four.

And he didn't say he can't learn from someone with less experience or not at his level. He said it's not why he comes here. He said the level you officiate matters when deciding how much value to give your statements. This is just common sense for life; any time you take advice you should know the experience and expertise level of those who are offering the advice.

LOL.....now that was funny.:D

1. Travel on Green post player. I have a patient whistle, and am not the type to micro-manage travelling - but that was an obvious travel that allowed an advantage. It just leaped out at me when I watched the video.

2. Block. A half-second earlier and the defender gets the call, but he was late. Ref the defense.

As for primaries - a collision like that needs a whistle - at every level. I personally don't care which of the two guys calls it. We can rip the new lead in the post game for passing on a train wreck. Yes, he was beaten on the play, but when the crash happened, he had a decent enough look (the "centre" look, if you will) and had enough to call something.

In the end, this entire sequence should not have happened - L or T on the original play should have called that post player for travelling.

And then all of the 51-49 plays for the rest of that game should be no calls too, right? :)

The lead missed the travel because he was too busy with his visible count. :>

I personally do not care if you disagree. I do not expect everyone or most people on here to ever agree with something I say. We all do not come from same officiating background or experience. I would not expect everyone here to always agree, especially on a judgment call.

At least you use the word "think." ;)

And just because a player hits the floor hard, does not change my position on this in any way. I have seen players fall hard to the floor, only to have no one contact them. And the reason the player fell hard is the reason I feel there should not be a call. And the rules back me up on this, because contact can be severe is not be a foul according to rule 4-27 if there is no advantage created by the contact. And on most flops where I come from, we do not call anything even with more contact than I saw here.

You seem to have a larger understanding of this conversation then your friend you seem to agree with. :D

Peace

As far as breaking down tape, if a play needs to be broken down frame-by-frame to determine if the right call was made then the supervisor isn't going to have much beef with whatever call was made.

What the supervisor will be looking for is to see whether or not the official put himself in a good position to see the play, what the official says he saw on the play, and why the official called or no-called the play.

I personally didn't see a "collision." Not that it wasn't there, I just don't think the video gives us good enough perspective to make that claim. I will agree that the official had a "decent enough look" that I'll defer to his judgment without a better video.

BTW, I'll try to look again tonight to see if I see it differently than the first 5 times I watched it.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

We have a winner. Someone else here was saying the same thing; can't remember who, though.

I’m going to stop this back and forth with you JRut.

I think there needs to be a whistle on this play as I see it on the clip. Airborne shooter, hard crash and contact equals whistle from me. I can’t pass on it.

I go to camps as well and believe me if I have a clinician or an assignor telling me something I’m yes sir, no sir. This forum allows us to debate things more freely due to its anonymity.

So in the long run we disagree. Not that big of a deal

Yup, same with the 49-51 plays.

Let's, for a moment, assume that there was simply a collision and ignore the near-zero possibility that there was no contact at all and ignore the flop that we all agree was present (which may only discount a charge but not a block).

Being a difficult/close call on a collision of this nature is not an excuse to have a no-call. All that being close does is make either call (block or charge) justifiable. It doesn't turn it into a no call. Calling nothing makes everyone (both teams/coaches/fans and even partners) wonder if you're even watching the game. It suggests that you're either indecisive or aloof.

I've heard our assignor and many others (clinician, mentors, etc.) repeatedly state that there should be a whistle when there is a block/charge collision (aka, train wreck) and two or more bodies go down (impying at least 1 from each team). One of the players is definitely responsible for the contact...the defender was there or they weren't. Some call needs to be made based on what you did see.

There might have been contact, but not at all was there a collision. The contact had to be slight at best. Even in the little break down, there is space between the chest of the defender and the shooter. And the way the player fell, clearly shows that the contact did not result in the falling of the shooter. The shooter was out of control and just because he fell does not warrant a foul. There has to be something illegal, not just the end result of what we “think” happen. And that is the point that many of us are making. If we make calls simply because someone fell, then we are going to make a lot of bad calls as a result.

Peace

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.