You got that right.

Some people know the rules.

Some people know the rules and HOW TO APPLY them properly.

There's a difference.

A difference that you - to the point of hilarity - seem to miss time and time again.

Exactly why you don't make such a call that far out of your area unless Ray Charles could make the call, sitting 50 rows up.

That's the problem. They were playing with a "centre" line. No wonder things got messed up. Everyone was metrically disoriented.

If we were to say there was contact, are some people suggesting that a player with his back to the offensive player is responsible for that player trying to run past him? Wouldn't this open up a can of worms since any player could simply run into a player that doesn't see him/her and get a foul called?

It's what happens when you refuse to play FIBA like everybody else :D

"That's A Trip" (Stevie Wonder 2009)
 

If there was contact, which I still don't see, it is possible that the lead saw #2 move into the ball handler's path too late, after he passed #2, which may have led to the ball handler tripping, and falling into the backcourt. To me, if it happened that way, that's illegal contact that put the ball handler at a disadvantage, and if I'm the lead, and I'm 100% sure that this contact happened, then I'm calling it, especially if Stevie Wonder is up in the 50th row yelling. "That's a trip".

I still don't see the contact, legal, or illegal, and I've watched the tape several times.

You make a good point and one which I would agree with it the defender simply maintained his normal stance, but in this play he took a long stride to his left by extending his left leg out past the frame of his shoulders. IMO that put his leg out there in an illegal position. It doesn't matter whether he did it with knowledge of where the opponent was or not.

We know that a player is not allowed to extend his arms or legs into the path of an opponent. If contact occurs under those circumstances, that player must bear the responsibility for the contact. That's why I think that this play was a foul.

Morgan, #2.

Thank You ...
 

Thanks.

If there's only one thing that's certain on this play, it is that nobody ran up anybody's back.:rolleyes:

Agreed, great call and very tough for trail to catch this. All about teamwork.

Or that nobody stuck out their leg. ;)

Peace

Let's Do The Hokey Pokey ...
 

#2 definitely stuck out his leg, I just don't think that there was any contact, at least from our camera angle, which was pretty close to the same angle that the trail had on this play.

I see four basic positions so far, all based on the same video clip.

1. MSU #2 did not stick out his foot, no contact, no foul
2. MSU #2 did stick out his foot, no contact, no foul
3. MSU #2 did stick out his foot, contact with KU player, no foul
4. MSU #2 did stick out his foot, contact with KU player, foul

If I were supervisor, the only two of these that I would not accept would be options 1 and 3. For option 1, I think I see the foot clearly out past the shoulder width of MSU #2.

For option 3: the idea that the contact was incidental goes against my training: incidental contact by definition does not significantly affect play. The KU player went to the floor, but he kept his dribble, so I guess somebody might want to make this case, but we've all seen touch fouls called that affected the play less than this contact.

The contact might have been accidental, sure, but we call accidental contact fouls all the time. The KU player did not intentionally run into his leg (and miss or nearly miss?), and to the worry that this ruling would overburden the defense I would reply: if you don't want to risk being called for an accidental trip, keep your feet under your body. IMO, option 3 would be the hardest to sell to a supervisor.

That leaves options 2 and 4, the choice between which hinges on whether there was contact. I can't tell from the video. If I were the supervisor, I'd want to hear what L had to say about the call.

Say what??

Where is that written as a part of the definition of incidental contact??

Example - defender pressuring the ball handler coming up the court. A5 sets a screen at midcourt. Defender never sees the screen and runs into A5 hard. A5 is bigger and just stands there, but little defender ends up sprawled on floor as ball handler proceeds to attack the basket with his/her dribble. You're going to call a foul because - even though it was incidental contact - it affected the play as they are now playing 5 on 4??

IMO, this thinking was probably exactly what the L on the OP had going through his mind as he blew the whistle. And he was wrong - again, JMO.

If you're asking where the rules define 'incidental contact', you know of course that the rules don't define it. I assume that you're not asking for a dictionary definition. Do you use an alternative definition that's significantly different?

You also know that judging whether contact "significantly affects the play" is exactly what we're paid to do. It's a test we apply to borderline cases of contact to determine whether the contact constitutes a foul.

As for your case, if the screen were legal, then the question of whether the contact is incidental does not arise. By judging that the screen is legal, you've already answered the question of the legality of the contact.

I guess I don't see the problem.

Of course!! :rolleyes:

NCAA 4-40.
NFHS 4-27.

Oops. :D

Well, of course I meant other than rule 4. :o

Good call!

At first view I wondered what the call was for....seemed odd. And even on first replay, I thought he tripped on his own foot. On additional replay, I saw that that #2 stepped into the cutter's path and clipped is leg, ultimately causing the fall. That "little" clip was the reason for the fall, and clearly was an advantage, and was #2 was certainly ont in an LGP on the cutter when he moved his foot into the cutter's path. It took a few steps to materialize but there was a foul. The fact that the space was tight didn't give #2 the right to make it tighter by extending his foot into the path of the cutter.

I felt the lead was going to pass on the call until it led to the fall. And I felt it was as much in the lead's primary as anything else...the player came from his area and leaving no one else to look at in that space, the lead looked at the convergence of the players from the backside...and angle the trail didn't have. Plus the point of the clip/trip was a long way from where the fall occurred....perhaps even below the FT line.

Moving toward the ball is not sticking your leg out. And the Kansas player did come from behind the MSU player. If there was contact, I am not sure how in the heck the MSU player is responsible. If that is a foul, we do not call a lot of fouls like this. I do not even think he saw the player going after the ball. The Kansas player was trying to get by him.

Peace

What do we have:

1. B1 not facing the opponent (no LGP)
2. B1 moving into the path of A1 (without LGP)...
3. B1 creating contact with A1 such that it causes A1 to fall.

Not seeing the opponent should have any bearing on the situation.

Also note that A1 got everything but his trailing foot past B1 without any contact. A1 met any reasonable requirement (head/shoulders) for getting through the space.

Most the times when we see this, it doesn't lead to the ball handler falling down....or the ball handler put themselves in a bind all on their own and we don't call it since it didn't create an advantage that wasn't already there. The Kansas player got tripped by a defender moving a foot into his path....and no, I'm not in any way, shape, or form, a Kansas fan.

LGP applies to a player defending the ball, not players moving all over the floor without the ball. The basics of basketball contact rules say each player has their right to a position on the floor. LGP is not apart of this discussion. And this was a loose ball and a Kansas player came from behind his opponent to try to move to a position. If there was contact (which there was not), the Michigan St. player was not responsible for that kind of contact. This was not a screen being set. And a player falling or not may or may not have anything to do with a foul being called. Players fall all the time and no one advocates a foul every time it takes place. If a screen was not set for the Kansas player in such a tight space, there would not have been the chance for contact.

You are right, the Kansas player did get tripped....by his own feet.

Peace

Yeah, #15 met those requirements just before he kicked #2 in the calf; and then #15 kicked himself....
Don't bail out that #15 guy.

I agree and I bleed Kansas Blue and Red.

MTD, Sr.

But he didn't have the position on the floor where the contact took place. If the Michigan player had been still and the guy tripped, it would be totally different. The Michigan guy undeniably extended his foot as the Kansas player's trailing foot came by, and apparently made just enough contact to cause the trip.

Michigan State player stepped away.
Kansas guy caused contact from behind.

Once again, the Kansas player was coming from behind another moving player.

The MSU player did not try to stop the movement of the Kansas player. They both were going in the same direction and if anyone was responsible for falling, it was the Kansas player. I guess I have been missing a lot of fouls on players that run into them. Then again, I am still waiting for the angle that shows there was contact. I still have not seen any. And even if there was contact, you cannot have a foul that the Lead should call that people cannot even agree with. Long way to get a "debatable" call for the Lead official. And this is the major point of all of this, not whether there was contact or no.

Peace

These are totally irrelevant to the situation.

This is not true.


This is debatable.

Jeff,

You talk all the time about officials at that level and how they might be better than some on here.
Do you officiate at that level? How many on here that disagree with the call officiate at the D1 level?
I really am flabbergasted that anyone who looks at that video cannot see the contact that causes the fall - whether or not you believe it's a foul.
You seem to have trouble listening to any viewpoint on most things other than your own. It really is difficult to learn anything while lacking that ability.

No I do not work D1 and I never claimed to. And I never suggested that your opinion of these play has anything to do with what level you work. This was a play that if you work college ball, would be considered incorrect mechanically unless you are 100% right.

That means that your partners on the play pass (or make the call if that is appropriate) on the play, you better not have any doubt what should have been called.

And most of my college games are with college officials and if you listen to them, I and many others (cannot speak for those here) are just as good as they are, they got a break at the right time and that is why they are there.

There is obviously doubt and we even have people on each side do not even agree on the circumstances of the play. If the Trail would have called this, then we would be having a different discussion or at least this would have gone in another direction.

Actually the Kansas player's leg running into the other is the reason the player fell. And when Kansas player fell, the MSU player closest too him was not the player everyone accused of "causing" the contact on your side of this argument.

That is funny. I have to agree with you to be able to listen. :rolleyes: Forget the fact that I am not the only one that feels the way that I do about the play and I watched not only what happen on my DVR and on the NCAA OnDemand (high definition feed, better than the YouTube version and more angles)

Is the reason you are trying to get personal now is you are not confident in your position? Maybe? ;)

Peace

Yes, it is debatable and that is the point. ;)

Peace

Triping, Or Being Tripped, But It's Academic, Because There Was No Observable Contact
 

#2, for whatever reason, took a step slightly backward, and slightly to his right, and if this were a block charge situation, and if there was contact, which I have yet to observe on any replay, this would be a blocking foul, which it isn't, because I still can't see any contact. If there was contact here, and that's a big if from any angle that I've seen, this would be a case of a player being tripped, not a player tripping over a leg that was already there.

IMHO, the KU player tried to bring his right foot up and over the MSU player's leg and ended up tripping himself. I think I know why the lead thought he needed to come get it (absolute) but in this case IMHO he was wrong.

If there was contact (which I have yet to see anything otherwise), it would have been incidental at best in my opinion. The player fell because his leg hit is other leg, not because of any assumed contact.

Peace

Let's try and think of this from the lead's angle. He was no doubt doubling the sideline on the play as a lot of supervisors want you to do (otherwise why would he be looking there and that is another discussion). He sees a Kansas player break towards the ball. He sees #2's leg extend into the path of the runner. He sees the runner's feet and sees one foot move unnaturally into the other and then the player ens up on the floor. I agree he went a long way to get the call. However, as I said earlier, there was a whole lot of action moving toward the trail.

Also, as we all know but few like to admit, a lot of officials peek and that is not always bad. In this situation, however, he may have been looking up the line. A very good friend of mine who got on staff this year in the Big East told me today if there was nothing going on on the paint, he's been told the lead better be helping from the backside on out of bounds plays from the sideline. My friend also said while he personally may have laid off the call, he can absolutely justify the lead going and getting it because it was an out of bounds play on the sideline with a lot of stuff going on and players leaving lead's area toward the trail's area. He told me it has been made clear to him the lead and the C have to be looking to help until the ball is established inbounds. On this play, it wasn't in yet and from the lead's view, I bet it sure looked like #2 tripped the KU player. I'm sure someone will chime in with if you only think, don't put air in the whistle but all I ask is try to visualize the play from lead's angle.

1) The only D1 official that I am sure is currently posting on this forum has already gone on record as saying that he did not see a foul on this play. And another poster in this thread, who was a good enough D2/D3 official to be selected to work a national Final Four, has also said that his view also is that no foul occurred. Having said that, there are many other posters who may not work at the D1 level responding to this thread who are obviously very knowledgable officials. Some agree; some disagree. The bottom line seems to be that whether a foul actually occurred or not is highly debatable.

2) What isn't debatable is that very few posters to date seem to agree with your past response to the point of this thread. The point was whether the lead should go so far out of his primary to make what is obviously from this debate a very iffy, borderline call. And seeing that hardly anybody has agreed so far with your viewpoint that the lead has to make this call, it seems that YOU are the one that is having trouble listening to another viewpoint, another viewpoint that almost unanimously rejects your hypothesis.

Do YOU officiate at the D1 level? Have you ever officiated at the D1 level? If not, what criteria are you using to tell us what D1 officials are thinking or should be calling?

What level are YOU currently working at? And how long have you been working at that level?

I await your answers.

For the record we have had a few individuals that are D1 officials that have posted here. Not just the person that everyone talks about or was here the longest. And even one I know worked the NCAA Men’s Tournament.

Peace

I was waiting for somebody to suggest this. I don't think this is possible because the contact took place on the back foot of the player, considerably behind his field of vision. IOW, he was not trying to avoid the defender's foot, because he never saw it.

Whether or not Sirmons saw the foul or guessed, we'll probably never know. But he got it right. But I highly doubt he would have guessed at that stage of the game. But you never know-he didn't have a stellar last minute of the SEC Championship.
My pregame always includes, if you see a foul or violation in my primary, call it. Our first priority is to the players - not my possible hurt feelings.

Jeff-

Are you speaking about the NCAA March Madness on Demand? I am curious to see the other angle(s). Thanks

-Josh

Well since you are the only authority on this issue, you must be right. ;)

As I have said before, this is not about the actual person. This is about the situation. I do not know the official in question and I do not recall that I even recognize him. That being said, he is a human being and I am sure he probably had other plays in this game our throughout the post season he would like to take back. We all have had those situations and no one ever realized we even feel that way.

This is really at the core of this discussion. I say the same thing, but I also say "it better be right" or "Trust your partners....there is a reason they passed on a particular play." At the college level, I have very few reasons to ever call something in front of my partners because those individuals are there for a reason. Once again, it looks pretty obvious that the Trail was trying to figure out why his partner had a whistle. I have a feeling that at leas on of the Lead's partners did not agree with the call if you only look at body language. Again, if this was a great get, we would not be debating what happen and having several people break the play down with several different versions of the play. That alone tells me this should have been passed on. If I am going to call this kind of foul, I would not be happy with the debate we are having here on this topic.

Peace

Yes I am.

All this feed shows are the same angles TV showed. The YouTube version (at least the one I saw) was not as clear of a picture and did not show the many slow motion replays of this play. Also the version I saw was in a better definition image of the play. I only see the play in the high definition version and I cannot see any such contact.

Peace

Walter made a post and you guys ignored him.

Great call. Bet a bozo award we hear down the road it was.

Thanks. :):rolleyes::D:p

I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you feel that you are so much better qualified to judge the actions of D1 officials than people who have views opposing yours.

In your own words about everybody that disagrees with you, you said "I have trouble believing that they know how to apply the basic rules of officiating". It seems that statement must apply to the majority of posters in this thread, including myself.

Again, are you a current D1 official? Have you ever officiated in a D1 regular season game? Are you an experienced D2/D3 official? Mens or Womans side?

If not, what is the highest level that you have worked and how long have you worked at that level.

I'm just trying to understand why you are so sure that you are right when the majority of posters in this thread seem to disagree completely with your assertation that the lead should always make a call like this, even if that call is far from his primary and is not obvious in any way.

And again, I await your answers.

I didn't say the Lead should always make a call like this. I simply said that I feel that any official who sees a foul and does not call it simply because they can say later if asked - "Not my primary" is not fulfilling their duty to the players on the court. Why do we officiate? To see how far we can advance our career by staying safe? Or to make sure the players receive the best possible play calling?
I am by no means advocating calling fouls all over the court and ball watching when we have off-ball activity to officiate. I am a strong believer in the mechanics and floor coverage being a guide to achieve the best team product possible. Believe me, I get tired of doing games and watching games on TV where the L is calling across the paint in front of the C all game. That is another area that Mr. Adams has been cracking down on this season. He's been trying to correct a lot of veterans' bad habits - stemming from their not being critiqued for so many years- this season. But players and situations dictate coverage not a diagram in a book. This play happened equidistant between the T and L who both were closer than the C. On plays like this, it's all about who has the best angle to see through players and make the best decision.
Do we not pregame that the Center needs to officiate sideline to sideline in transition? Why? Because they will usually have the best angle on those plays even one on the opposite sideline.

As far as my own level, I prefer to keep that to myself. I strive to continue to work to help officials get better and provide opportunities to advance and move up. I believe that is my best reward. Some of these officials have moved from high school all the way to D1 and even into the D League, WNBA and NBA.

Why does this have to be about being safe? If we disagree about this particular call that is fine with me. But it has nothing to do with trying to be safe. I feel that this was a suspect call and is magnified that it was out of the area of the calling official. I do not care about how someone advances or does not advance in relationship to this one call. It is one call. It was not a career maker or breaker. Granted the situation was critical, but I do not think the end of the world is based on this one call. And if it happened in the first 4 minutes of the half, I would have felt the same way.


I have been to John's camps three times and I can tell you that this call would not have been one very well received if it is considered wrong. For the sake of this discussion, I will say that at best that is up for debate.

I completely agree with you if you want to keep your personal accomplishments to yourself. That is certainly your right to feel that way. But I think the reason that question was asked was because you took the position as if no one could disagree with you because they did not see things your way. I am very comfortable with my position on this play and came to that conclusion based on my experience and training. I am sure you came to the conclusion based on your own experiences, but do not make it sound as if no one could disagree.

Peace

Oh, I thought you mentioned that it had an overhead shot. Nevermind, I'm too lazy tonight to read back through all the posts. Thanks

-Josh

It's easy to get confused about things.:o

Lead, Trail, Center, Overhead ???
 

That's what we need, a fourth official on the foor, the overhead. This call would certainly be in his primary.

No!!!!
 

Are you suggesting the "eye in the sky"/"Madden type" referee on a wire/camera used in football? ARGH!

Yes.

The quote by refguy referring to people who disagreed with his position was "I have trouble believing that they know how to apply the basic rules of officiating." I thought that statement was incredibly arrogant.

Whether a foul occurred or not is certainly debatable. Personally, I have watched the video many times and still have nor seen anything happen that I thought was a foul.

And refguy continuing to insist that it is not only OK but recommended that officials go so far out of their primary to make a call on such a highly debatable, iffy play made me wonder if refguy knows how to apply the basic rules of officiating.

He is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to belittle people who disagree with his opinion. That was my point, it has been made and I'll leave it at that.

:)
Josh,
I saw the slo-mo from the top.

I emailed #2's father. Based on his answer it doesn't appear he even discussed the play with his son afterwards. Probably too busy making arrangements for his trip to Detroit :):

"Thanks. I believed there was (some) contact..."

At least someone said it and I wasn't crazy :p I don't know if that is a compliment or an insult to confuse you all :rolleyes: It's been such a long thread it difficult to keep the "he said,he said" straight.

-Josh

'Tis. :)

I probably could have put it in a nicer way. When a player who does not have legal position causes an opponent to trip and fall, a foul should be called.

So a player that has a player running up his back is not in a legal position, but the player that knows where he is going is? Interesting. Based on this example, we are missing a lot of fouls.

Peace

The problem with that line of thinking is that the player who has their back to another can't be moving unless it is in the same line and direction as the player coming from behind. If they're moving any other direction, they're liable for the foul. In the the case under discussion, said player was stepping sideways...not a direction permitted without LGP. LGP is also a defensive principle, the offensive player doesn't have the same or similar restrictions unless it is a screen. And the player that was "fouled" was not setting a screen.

Not sure why the focus on the player "running up the defensive player's back"....KU #15 was 90% past MSU #2 and would have cleanly ran past him had MSU #2 not moved his left leg at the last second.

Also, I don't understand why the emphasis in the OP either. The L had, at most, 2 players in his primary during the throw-in to which there was no post activity happening. If I don't have any action going on in my primary, I'm looking secondary, which for the L is where this play occurred. I too, believe the L had the best angle for the play in question.

Can someone tell me the logic/rationale for the foul call on the MSU player that caused the clock to stop at 19.9 seconds? KU player goes from being a dribbler to a screener in a split second and looks like the contact occurred after the KU player hands ball to his teammate.

I wondered about that call also.

Obviously I disagree, but that is the problem with the call. No one agrees on what actually happened. I have said many times why I disagree with this statement.

Often time a pass or a play is going to the basket. Have you never seen an alley-op dunk pass? Often times the screens that makes that happen is around the basket. If he is looking at someone else, he might miss a hold or an illegal screen. Once again, the Trail and Center passed on this play which they are much more responsible for in this situation. It is a long way to go for a Lead to call something well beyond the three point line. I cannot think of many times I have ever had to make that kind of call in a half-court situation.

Note that I finished your statement above to reflect your adamant opinion that officials <b>must</b> call plays of this type out of their primary. As noted before, my opinion is that your opinion is completely wrong. I also disagree with your contention above that the defenders had an illegal position on the court in this particular case. LGP and LGP principles do not apply. Neither defender was guarding the player that was allegedly fouled and both defenders are entitled to take a legal position on the court if they get there first. Both defenders had their position before the (alleged) contact was made. If there was contact, and I still haven't seen any, then the Kansas player initiated that contact and was the author of his own misfortune.

The contact I'm talking about happened right at the 3-point line, so roughly 20ft from the end line. Assuming an un-obstructed view, I'd say that's a reasonable distance to make a call if you're 110% sure. That's definitely not an 'AT&T' call as you're trying to make it sound.

Again, my opinion saying that's a reasonable distance. However, it's a FACT that the contact, that I (and others) see, happened right AT the 3-point line, not 'well beyond' the 3-point line.

Agree though, that this was a very unique circumstance, and that it is probably pretty rare for an off-official to have to make such a call, but every official needs to be prepared to do just that if such a circumstance requires.

The supposed contact had to take place about 5 feet above the 3 point line. And the player did not fall until 15 feet or so away from the three point line. The call was not made until after the player fell while he was lying next to the division line. Now I do not know your knowledge of three person, but no where is outside the 3 point line in the area of the Lead official. The Lead's coverage area ends at the FT line. Now in my 10 plus years doing 3 Person that is a long ways to be looking for me or anyone. And at the college level the players are much bigger and it is harder to look clearly at those players.

FACT!! You obviously did not see the video if you think the "contact" took place at the 3 point line. Just goes the show another reason this was reaching.

The play was a basketball play; it was at a critical moment in the game. Two other officials were on the play and passed. What do I need to be ready to call? Seems like my partners have it covered and if you work enough 3 Person, you realize they can cover that. This was an NCAA Regional Semi-Final; I think my partners can handle the game at that point. If they cannot, then I am worrying too much.

Peace

The contact actually took place a few feet outside the arc, pretty much even with the top of the arc.

I saw the tape. We cannot ever agree on whether there was contact, you really think we are going to agree on where the "non-contact" took place? ;)

Peace

You say there was no contact, yet argue about where it took place.

I guess 7'-3" above the arc.

The only place it could have taken place was outside the 3 point lane. I just disagree that it took place at all. When the Kansas player feel, no one was around him. But he fell because of contact. Riiiiiiihhhhhhhttttttttt!!!!! :D

I know the word "context" is hard for you to actually understand.

Peace

That's called giving your partner, who has the primary coverage, the first crack at getting the call. The T didn't so the L came in with the call. That seemed pretty obvious to me.

Likewise, the T's covereage ends at that same FT line. Am I the only one to ever see a T come in with a rebounding foul?? Is that too a long way to be looking??? Bigger players I would agree, but I would say it would be easier to see those players because of that. I could see a size 17 foot a lot clearer at 20 feet away than I could a size 9 foot.


Yeah, I have many times. Only took the first replay when the game was on for me to see what really happened, the MSU player lower leg contact with KU player's foot. I took a snapshot of the video when the contact occurred and drew a vertical line, ended up a foot or so outside the 3-point line. My guess is that we're not talking about the same part of the entire play.


How do you KNOW that the C passed? He had quite a few players in his line of sight and could have been blocked from seeing it.

You yourself, have said that D1 officials sometimes "miss one". True enough. Would it not be ok if one of the other two officials on the court come in and pick up their partner in that case, if one of them happened to see the play and were 110% sure? That's what I'd want, no matter the game's venue. Maybe you wouldn't. Thing is, this is just 1 call out of 100+ whistles during the game. Why is one whistle from out of primary considered 'worrying too much'?

I know you know believe there was contact, but, for the sake of this discussion, assume there was.

Yes, it was above the FT line, but no where near as far as you think.

The defender who the foul was called on had his right foot on the three-point line to the side of the key about 4 feet above the FT line extended. He left foot, which is what tripped the Kansas player was a step or so toward the center of the court and toward the division line.

The call was made late. It's called seeing the entire play. If the player doesn't fall, no foul. Since he ultimately fell due to the contact, foul.



Take a look at where the players were....

• 2 players on the opposite sideline, a little below the FT line.
• 2 players just coming into the key around the block form the center's side just as the trip happens.
• 5 players on the L/T side of the court, between the FT line extended and top of the key extended.
• 1 player (thrower) about 8 feet below the division line.
• 0 players below the FT line and on the leads side of the lane or in the lane (with 2 coming into the far side of the lane)

Now the officials...

The C was a little above the FT line extended...perhaps top of the key. The C was clearly covering the 2 on his sideline and maybe still covering the two moving into the key from his primary...one of them looked to still be straddling the lane line on the C's side. Except for the thrower, the fouler was the farthest player from the C. The foulee, 2nd farthest. The C, with 2-4 other players to cover in his primary and 7 players closer to him than the point of the foul, wouldn't usually look to the 8th and 9th closest players for a play 3-4 feet outside the lane line extended on the opposite side.

The trial, being at the division line, could have covered it but was pretty high to cover a play just above the FT line extended....and was in no better position than the lead.

The lead had no other players in his primary...the fouled player came form his primary....maybe had two coming into his primary from the opposite side 60+ feet from the throwin spot and not actively working to be part of the play. The next match-up for the lead was the point of the foul. He was actually as close to it as he trail (perhaps a little closer even), had an unobstructed view from that position with no other competitive match-ups in his area.

Should the lead have simply packed his whistle up and waited for players to enter his primary? No. I've been taught that when there are no players in your primary, you extend to the next closest competitive matchup...in this case, the point where the foul was called.

Maybe that is what you call it. That is not what they call it around me. This is not a play that started in the Center's area and ended up in the Lead's position. I do not know your officiating background, but this call would not have been very well accepted in the places I work. And this game had many cameras watching.

Actually the Trail's area is above the FT line. That is the case in all mechanics (CCA Men's and Women's and NF) that most of us work other than maybe FIBA.

We can argue about this all day. But you are admitting that the area is not in the Lead's coverage area.

The same way you know that the Lead actually saw contact and did not guess. ;)

Because there is (a lot) debate if the call is right. And if I am going to get a call outside of my area, I cannot have this much debate over it and feel comfortable. And I bet the Trail might not agree that it was a good call. Maybe he does by reviewing tape, but his initial reaction was not necessarily positive. His body language sure was not “you saved me.” The Trail’s body language was much more like, “What tha…..”

Peace

You are making way too much sense.
You too Camron.

Feel free to look back, but none of my posts were arguing the fact that this was Lead's coverage. I'm just not getting all riled up because L came in and took that call. That was how the OP started, right?

I don't think you understood my point on T coming in for a rebounding foul. I was giving you a 'reverse' example to ponder and......well, never mind.

I will, by default, give D1 officials the respect and make the assumption that they are only making calls that they see. This is something, I think, we are all told/taught in our first years of officiating.

I will not though, that because a D1 official doesn't blow his whistle, assume it is because he is passing on the play. That's taking an assumption to an unjustified level.

I'm glad you brought up the reaction of the Trail official. I agree, his reaction wasn't positive and his body language was very negative. To me, that is inexcusable and is basically throwing his partner under the bus. Save it for the locker room.

I did not say you suggested this was in the Lead's area. You could not make that claim anyway. Also a rebounding situation is very different.

We are? First of all I see people ripping D1 officials all the time here. I even see people ripping the top names. I wonder why this play is given so much deference to this one call. And I can think of a certain official that calls all over the court and the very same people on the opposite side of this issue from me often point out how bad this particular official is. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!! ;)

Well I am not assuming anything, the covering official did not call anything. That usually means you passed on the play. ;)

I agree, but telling.

Peace

Nice try. Earlier you said, "Two other officials were on the play and passed." You obviously were talking about T and C. So if you weren't making an assumption for C, what would you call it? :eek:

You're assuming C saw it and passed. Possible. But it is also possible he just didn't see the play. So yes, Jeff, you are assuming (unless you know Jamie Luckie personally and he told you he saw it and passed). ;)

Nice Try?

Dude, if you think it was a great call, stick with that. I do not think it was a good call. I have been doing 3 Person for over 10 years and have worked hundreds of games and I am a licensed official to teach 3 Person in my state. If you do not want to accept my point of view, don't accept my point of view. And I go to camps all the time where the very officials you see on TV tell us about what we should not or should not call.

I once had a game in camp where my partner called a travel in a critical movement completely in my area and I passed on the call. The evaluator spent most of the time talking about that one call after I told the evaluator when asked I got nothing. To me this is a very similar situation. And I have seen numerous guys get questions about calls for the very reason we are discussing here.

BTW, I do know someone that knows Jamie Luckie rather well and if I cared I would ask me to contact him. But what is the point and if he told me something, I certainly would not pass it here. I just know that I would be looking at this play as the Center because I the Center had no competitive match-ups in their area. I do not know what you have been taught, but a foul in a half-court set by the Lead above or near the 3 point line better have more than debate over the call. That is how I roll. ;)

Peace

I know officials who have worked 20 years and aren't any better now than when they started. The learning curve is not equal for everyone. And I know instructors that are great at teaching but not so much at applying those principles themselves.

Yep, I have a lot to accomplish.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/laughing.gif

Peace

Tell me then what the lead should have been covering if not what he called....remembering that there were 0 players in his area at the time of the foul (with one soft matchup just entering from C's area) with the cut having just come from his area while the C had 1 pair of players fully in his area, 1 pair leaving, and another two defenders and one offensive player closer to him than the point of the foul.

It certainly wasn't a typical half-court set with the positioning of the players as they were...it was a mid-court thrown-in....resembling transistion play where the leads area extends a little higher until the players drop down into the lane and the T and C settle into a typical FC position.

Camron, stop trying to make so much sense. Sense doesn't work with some people. By the way, I wish I could work with more people like you and IUGrad.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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

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

:D

Peace

Questions for any and all: Post player travels in front of the Lead. Whose primary is it?
Post player holds the ball for 5 seconds. Whose primary is it?
Post player turns away from lead to the middle and gets fouled. Whose primary is it?
Player gets fouled in transition on trail's sideline halfway between trail and lead.
Whose primary is it?
Player pulls up for 3 in transition at the FT line extended trail side. Whose primary is it?
Right handed player pulls up for a jumper on the left elbow (weak side)and gets hit on his shooting arm. Whose primary is it?

Anybody besides Jeff?

It depends. Where is the player? How many bodies are in the area?

College the Lead does not count closely guarded. Same goes for my state, but apparently that is OK in NF.


Center has some coverage, so does the Trail. Depends on where the ball is located.

There is no primary coverage in transition.

There is no primary coverage in transition. All three officials might have some coverage. Likely the Center or the Trail would be on this play.

The center. Are you suggesting the Center cannot see this play? ;)

Peace

I know whose primary it is, but I also know it is easier for one of the other spots to see a travel in the post than it is for the lead.

Okay, I think now we're just....
 

Anyone besides Jeff care to answer those scenarios?
You just agreed that there are situations during a game where there are no primary areas, and where the diagram in the book is irrelevant to who should blow the whistle. And just because you have a player or two in your primary according to the book doesn't mean that's where you should officiate. Officiate the closest competitive match-up not the wood or players that are just standing there picking their nose. I would hope as an instructor you are teaching this? BTW. those 2 players that may have been in the L's primary weak side were good examples of nose pickers.

It's tough to answer your situations because there are no absolutes or always in officiating. PCAs/diagrams are meant to serve as a guideline, but I'm learning that the main thing is about open looks.
Sometimes the official with the best open look isn't the one who should be making the call... we must decide whether going to get it or passing will help THE GAME.

What if those two guys get there elbows up while going for the gold?

Care to elaborate? You state that the main thing is to get an open look, and then follow up by saying whoever has the best look shouldn't make the call? Like maybe the C calling a rebound foul on weak side block when both L and T are stacked? Or C officiating the help side defender on a baseline drive in front of the Lead?
Players dictate where we should be looking - not the book. The book serves as a great starting point.

What do you mean?

Did I say that??
"Sometimes the official with the best open look isn't the one who should be making the call"
It just depends...

I would hope the C is weak side in most cases :) and the L probably shouldn't be making that call anyway.

Great teamwork!

We agree, but there are so many factors when determining if reaching out is worth it & then there is also the timing.

I believe if you reach, the whistle should be a little late, Give the official who is supposed to make the call an opportunity to make it. Maybe he/she was being patient on the contact.

Still trying to find somebody that will agree with your nonsense?:D

Why don't you put down something like:
<b>"Do not respond unless you also think that officials should watch for phantom fouls all all the court!"</b>
or--
<b>"Do not respond if you understand why the court is divided into "primary zones."</b>
or--
<b>"Do not respond unless you agree with me."</b>

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.:rolleyes:

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.
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.

http://bevan.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/pwned4.jpg :D

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. ;)

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.