Stay out of my pond!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Which one was it, "0" players or two players? If I recall one of your fellow, "there was contact" brothers said there were two players earlier. There were two players standing dead in the Lead's area.

As I clearly stated, it started with 0 with 2 drifting in at the time of the contact.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The two players (the one that fell and the player trailing) came from the middle of the court around the circle. There was a screen that was in the circle to try to free the Kansas player that fell. All that action is easily what the C is watching.

Actually, by the time of the point in question, they were well outside the lane on the L/T side (not from the middle/circle), the C would have either long since given up on them since he had several more matchups to watch or was watching the screening action...which was not the point of the foul...the fouler came from the opposite side.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not to say the Lead could not have seen the screen, but he had two players that might have come to the basket either to defend or catch a pass.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It wasn't? Ball in the half court. Trail in the half court in-bounding the ball, all players in the half court, sounds pretty typical to me. Now during a throw-in I have no problem if the Lead extends their coverage, but that was not an in-between play. That was a play that took place outside of the 3 point line and concluded way in the Trail's area with no one covering the thrower.

In how many typical halfcourt sets is the trail standing on or behind the division line? In how many typical halfcourt sets does the lead have 0 players in their primary, even if for just a few seconds?

They may have been in the "halfcourt" but the players were not in a typical alignment for typical halfcourt coverage.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have to do a little better than that if you think you are going to change my mind. It is not happening. I have seen the play enough to try to see why the Lead could have called this. I saw nothing other than an iffy play that the Trail passed on.

Peace

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by refguy

Anyone besides Jeff care to answer those scenarios?

Originally Posted by Old_School

Still trying to find somebody that will agree with your nonsense?
Why don't you put down something like:
"Do not respond unless you also think that officials should watch for phantom fouls all all the court!"
or--
"Do not respond if you understand why the court is divided into "primary zones."
or--
"Do not respond unless you agree with me."

Does that cover everything that you're looking for?

Good luck with that.

Maybe you can try another forum? One where there's fanboys who don't understand officiating and will agree with you.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

That'll be nice to see when you each start calling fouls and violations in each other's primary area.

If that's what you've taken from our comments, so be it. It couldn't be further from the truth. I think I can safely say, that none of us 'there was contact brothers' would argue that calling fouls and violations outside of one's primary, ON A REGULAR BASIS, is ok. This was 1 of 33 fouls for the game. I don't remember exactly, but I doubt there were any other egrecious 'out of primary' calls during this particular game. Now if this particular play happened 2 minutes into the game, I doubt there would have even been a thread started on this.

It was mentioned earlier that some people on here bash certain D1 officials for calling out of primary. True, but those particular officials seem to make a habit of doing this, rather than it being the exception. That is the difference. If this had been the 3rd or 4th 'out of primary' call that the L is the OP had made in this particular game, then my opinion might be different. But I don't think anyone here can say that the L had a habit of calling out of his primary, rather it truly was an exception call that he felt needed to be made.

Some here also questioned whether or not the L actually saw the play, but rather guessed because the KU player went to the floor. Do you really think that these guys make it to this level by guessing on calls? I don't. Now I don't know if John Adams agreed with the call or not, but I'm sure that the L could have easily explained to Coach Izzo what he had on that play had he been asked.

At the end of the day, a foul is a foul. If I miss a foul right in front of me, and by chance my partner 25ft away happens to get a good look because the sea of players happened to part just at the right time so he could see the play clearly, then I'm nothing more than thankful that he comes in and gets the call. Again, these are EXCEPTION SITUATIONS. Maybe I had an unexpected sneeze at the wrong time, or maybe had a brain fade, or maybe something else on the court distracted me for a split second. There are a bunch of circumstances why I, or any official, at any level, might miss a call.

Just another reason why we don't need officials peeing, figuratively speaking, on the court marking their territory. We all know, at any given time, what our primary coverage area is, so give that a rest.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As I clearly stated, it started with 0 with 2 drifting in at the time of the contact.

How did we come to this conclusion? There were 2 players squarely in the middle of the paint. The 'C' was unusually high because of the number of players near the top of the arc. The 'C' had zero eyes on the 2 players "drifting" into the paint.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

How did we come to this conclusion? There were 2 players squarely in the middle of the paint. The 'C' was unusually high because of the number of players near the top of the arc. The 'C' had zero eyes on the 2 players "drifting" into the paint.

They were clearly in the paint by the time the player hit the floor...but they were drifting in as the play developed. An if you mean squarely in the middle of the paint to mean having one foot out of the lane, fine.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They were clearly in the paint by the time the player hit the floor...but they were drifting in as the play developed. An if you mean squarely in the middle of the paint to mean having one foot out of the lane, fine.

And who was watching them as they drifted?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

As I clearly stated, it started with 0 with 2 drifting in at the time of the contact.

Actually, by the time of the point in question, they were well outside the lane on the L/T side (not from the middle/circle), the C would have either long since given up on them since he had several more matchups to watch or was watching the screening action...which was not the point of the foul...the fouler came from the opposite side.

If it makes you happy, OK.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In how many typical halfcourt sets is the trail standing on or behind the division line? In how many typical halfcourt sets does the lead have 0 players in their primary, even if for just a few seconds?

They may have been in the "halfcourt" but the players were not in a typical alignment for typical halfcourt coverage.

Actually Camron, I do not know your experience on the college floor and if I recall you have worked college games which means you are on a college floor. But it is rather typical on a throw-in to be back a little ways as the Trail. Considering that they want you back and you do not just focus on the thrower that has absolutely no pressure, you focus on the players going after the ball. If there is a steal or an attempt to steal, the Trail might be the only one to get that. The center can help with off ball activity, but the Trail cannot rely on them only to see something. I cannot imagine that the Trail was not looking there.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Some here also questioned whether or not the L actually saw the play, but rather guessed because the KU player went to the floor. Do you really think that these guys make it to this level by guessing on calls? I don't. Now I don't know if John Adams agreed with the call or not, but I'm sure that the L could have easily explained to Coach Izzo what he had on that play had he been asked.

No one said this was a habit. We said it was a single call that by many was judged to be wrong. That does not mean the official or officials could not make mistakes. We have talked about many other mistakes this tournament. Do not make it sound as if this one had to be correct just because you like the call. What about all the other calls in the game?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Just another reason why we don't need officials peeing, figuratively speaking, on the court marking their territory. We all know, at any given time, what our primary coverage area is, so give that a rest.

I am not sure that is correct. Based on the series of questions that were asked, and even the way this play was described, whether they know the primary coverage is really not the point. The question is do you know what is typical and what is trained. And I can tell you that John did not take too kindly to officials calling things out of their primary when I attended his camps. At least not plays that an official passed on.

Peace

[JRutledge]

I had a conversation with someone that would know much more than I would about these kinds of situations than I might ever know.

I will not say this call was the reason a certain official was held back in the past NCAA Tournament, but the call we were talking about in this thread was not seen as correct by the NCAA. Not only because the call was questionable from all the angles we all saw, but also because it was far out of the area for the calling official. And this kind of call also held back some veteran officials because they tend to call things outside of their areas during the season.

I will leave it at that.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Hmm, so let me get this straight - it is considered an incorrect call (by the NCAA) to go outside your calling area to make a questionable call?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell 'ya.

(I can't wait to see this thread reved up again...)

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hmm, so let me get this straight - it is considered an incorrect call (by the NCAA) to go outside your calling area to make a questionable call?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell 'ya.

(I can't wait to see this thread reved up again...)

Yabut, ... yabut that *needed* to be called !!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I had a conversation with someone that would know much more than I would about these kinds of situations than I might ever know.

I will not say this call was the reason a certain official was held back in the past NCAA Tournament, but the call we were talking about in this thread was not seen as correct by the NCAA. Not only because the call was questionable from all the angles we all saw, but also because it was far out of the area for the calling official. And this kind of call also held back some veteran officials because they tend to call things outside of their areas during the season.

I hate being right all the time.

[mick]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I hate being right all the time.

..Hate it ?
If that is so, then why are you smirking ?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mick

..Hate it ?
If that is so, then why are you smirking ?

"Hate" is such a complex emotion...