What do you have???

[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

[mu4scott]

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

[Adam]

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.

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.

[canuckrefguy]

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.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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 who calls it. We can rip the primary guy a new one in the post game for passing on a train wreck or being out of position.

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.

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

[Raymond]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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.

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.