Stay out of my pond!

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by refguy

Too much ego and not nearly enough teamwork. This was an example of a play that started in the lead's primary, especially based on where the Trail was, and he stayed connected to the play and continued to officiate as there was nothing between him and those players. The mechanics are in place as a guide. It doesn't mean you don't extend your coverage area when the players dictate it. Nobody cares if you officiate the heck out of zero players in your "primary" if there is crap going on elsewhere that fails to get called. Anybody can officiate the wood or the paint on the floor. For anybody that claims this was not a foul, I would have trouble believing that they know how to apply the basic principles of officiating.

It was not a foul.

Your analysis is a pile of crap. The PLAY did NOT start in the lead's primary. The throw-in may have started in the lead's primary but the PLAY occurred directly in front of the trail and well outside of the lead's primary. The PLAY is the slight contact(if any) that may have happened. And you're dumping on the trail who was in great position to make that call in his primary if he thought that there was a call that needed to be made.

All officials will make a bad call on occasion. This was one of those occasions.

You're not talking about a train wreck here. You're advocating calling a very iffy touch foul that is right in front of one of your partners and way out of your primary. What you are advocating is utter nonsense from a basic officiating standpoint!

[JugglingReferee]

Popcorn.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by Old_School

It was not a foul.

Your analysis is a pile of crap. The PLAY did NOT start in the lead's primary. The throw-in may have started in the lead's primary but the PLAY occurred directly in front of the trail and well outside of the lead's primary. The PLAY is the slight contact(if any) that may have happened. And you're dumping on the trail who was in great position to make that call in his primary if he thought that there was a call that needed to be made.

All officials will make a bad call on occasion. This was one of those occasions.

You're not talking about a train wreck here. You're advocating calling a very iffy touch foul that is right in front of one of your partners and way out of your primary. What you are advocating is utter nonsense from a basic officiating standpoint!

Where did I dump on the trail?!? I don't think the Trail could have seen the contact based on where he was and where the players were. He didn't call it because he didn't see it, not because it wasn't a foul. Show me where "train wreck" appears in the manual or rule book. Someone needs to learn or re-read the definition of a foul - Contact which creates a disadvantage to a player. The player went to the floor and was about to commit an over and back violation.
Question: If a shooter pulls up for a 15 foot shot on the baseline 4 feet from the lead and gets hit on the right elbow away from the lead, and you see it as trail, you're not calling it because it's not a train wreck? I referee 1st for the players and to get the play right.

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by refguy

Someone needs to learn or re-read the definition of a foul - Contact which creates a disadvantage to a player.

Yes, someone certainly does need to learn the the definition of a foul. You left out the key word in the definition--"illegal". You can have legal or "incidental" contact that also will create a disadvantage to a player. That isn't a foul. It seems that you really don't understand the concept.

You also need to learn what a "play" is. Someone without the ball running completely untouched through an official's primary is not part of any "play" that needs to be adjudicated. In the situation being discussed, the actual "play" started well outside of the lead's primary.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by Old_School

Yes, someone certainly does need to learn the the definition of a foul. You left out the key word in the definition--"illegal". You can have legal or "incidental" contact that also will create a disadvantage to a player. That isn't a foul. It seems that you really don't understand the concept.

You also need to learn what a "play" is. Someone without the ball running completely untouched through an official's primary is not part of any "play" that needs to be adjudicated. In the situation being discussed, the actual "play" started well outside of the lead's primary.

Question: Does an official's primary change based on the location of the players or simply it is always as drawn in a diagram in the book? White #2 stuck his leg out - outside of his vertical plane right before #15 came through causing 15 to trip and fall down.
Question: A player is set for 5 seconds with his feet wider than his vertical plane and an opponent trips over his foot. Foul?

[canuckrefguy]

Just in case - link:
YouTube - Sweet 16: Kansas vs. Michigan State

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by refguy

Question: Does an official's primary change based on the location of the players or simply it is always as drawn in a diagram in the book? White #2 stuck his leg out - outside of his vertical plane right before #15 came through causing 15 to trip and fall down.

The primary area is that is written in the book. That being said I have no problem with extending that area if need be to help out. But the problem with this play in my opinion, the Lead was the last to make this call. The ball was around the FT circle and had gone further and further away from the Lead's area and well outside the 3 point line. If there was going to be a call, the Center was a better official to call something if the Trail passed. Let us forget if that was the right call or not.

Originally Posted by refguy

Question: A player is set for 5 seconds with his feet wider than his vertical plane and an opponent trips over his foot. Foul?

It might be if the player is setting a screen. But you have to set a screen for that to "automatically" apply.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The primary area is that is written in the book. That being said I have no problem with extending that area if need be to help out. But the problem with this play in my opinion, the Lead was the last to make this call. The ball was around the FT circle and had gone further and further away from the Lead's area and well outside the 3 point line. If there was going to be a call, the Center was a better official to call something if the Trail passed. Let us forget if that was the right call or not.


Peace

Actually, the play happened even further out - just above the 3pt line.

You look at the beginning of the play, and I can see how lead, who has no action other than two players across the key, might extend his primary here. I'm not sure the centre, from where he is, can see the "trip". You need to be able to see the other (90 degrees away) angle, and all the centre likely sees is the Kansas player fall down.

So I'm going to modify my original comments and grant that, on this play, lead is watching the throw-in action away from the ball, which MIGHT include stuff near the top of the circle.

As well, looking at the replay, lead would have had a decent - though FAR AWAY - angle to view the cutter and both defenders. He is also the best out of the three to view the entire play from start to finish.

But there's one of two things that happened:

1. There was no contact
2. There was slight contact, but it was incidental.

Either way - not worthy of a call.

So it could have been a good pickup by the lead - if there had been a foul.

Which there wasn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Actually, the play happened even further out - just above the 3pt line.

You look at the beginning of the play, and I can see how lead, who has no action other than two players across the key, might extend his primary here. I'm not sure the centre, from where he is, can see the "trip". You need to be able to see the other (90 degrees away) angle, and all the centre (Wow, you really are Canadian ) likely sees is the Kansas player fall down.

So I'm going to modify my original comments and grant that, on this play, lead is watching the throw-in action away from the ball, which MIGHT include stuff near the top of the circle.

As well, looking at the replay, lead would have had a decent - though FAR AWAY - angle to view the cutter and both defenders. He is also the best out of the three to view the entire play from start to finish.

It appears that the Center official had no one in their area. Usually in this situation in CCA Men's Mechanics, this would be a Center call for that very reason. The Lead needs to be more concerned with plays near the basket. Not to say the Lead could not have been watching some players near the circle, but the Center if they are doing what is normally taught, the Center would have been a much better person to call this. And I am sure the Center was likely looking at this pay. And the Trail did not have a close defender on the throw-in so he can watch more than just watching the person with the ball. And if you are one of those officials that this is not your primary, you cannot be wrong. I have no problem with a call from either Lead or Center, just be right. I know if I had made this call as the Lead, I would want that play back. And that was really the point of this thread in the first place.

Peace

[refguy]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Actually, the play happened even further out - just above the 3pt line.

You look at the beginning of the play, and I can see how lead, who has no action other than two players across the key, might extend his primary here. I'm not sure the centre, from where he is, can see the "trip". You need to be able to see the other (90 degrees away) angle, and all the centre likely sees is the Kansas player fall down.

So I'm going to modify my original comments and grant that, on this play, lead is watching the throw-in action away from the ball, which MIGHT include stuff near the top of the circle.

As well, looking at the replay, lead would have had a decent - though FAR AWAY - angle to view the cutter and both defenders. He is also the best out of the three to view the entire play from start to finish.

But there's one of two things that happened:

1. There was no contact
2. There was slight contact, but it was incidental.

Either way - not worthy of a call.

So it could have been a good pickup by the lead - if there had been a foul.

Which there wasn't.

How could you say above in #2 that there may have been slight contact but it was incidental? The player went to the floor. Sheesh.

"Accidental isn't always incidental." by just another ref

Great quote.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by refguy

White #2 stuck his leg out - outside of his vertical plane right before #15 came through causing 15 to trip and fall down.

Taking your word for it on the numbers involved, but I think this is pretty much what happened, but I would say as he came through, rather than before. Accidental isn't always incidental.

[mick]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Taking your word for it on the numbers involved, but I think this is pretty much what happened, but I would say as he came through, rather than before. Accidental isn't always incidental.

I agree. #2's foot was moving (and off the ground) when the contact was made [from behnd].