Stay out of my pond!

[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

[canuckrefguy]

Here's a screenshot of the play - trail is just off screen, straddling the centre line, and then takes two steps along the sideline, into the FC.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Here's a screenshot of the play - trail is just off screen, straddling the centre line, and then takes two steps along the sideline, into the FC.

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

[tomegun]

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?

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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

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

[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.

[Adam]

This seems to boil down to a borderline foul, if it's a foul. If the T or C had called it, no one would question it. But the L?
If he got this one right, he got lucky.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This seems to boil down to a borderline foul, if it's a foul. If the T or C had called it, no one would question it. But the L?
If he got this one right, he got lucky.

I don't think I can call the foul, because #2 [yes, #2] was not put at a disadvantage when he was hit.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This seems to boil down to a borderline foul, if it's a foul. If the T or C had called it, no one would question it. But the L?
If he got this one right, he got lucky.

I believe there was contact and the L may have got it right but I don't believe that is where he should have been looking. The C was high and looking straight across the court and the T had a clear view of the play. The L had 2 players in the paint. JMHO.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I believe there was contact and the L may have got it right but I don't believe that is where he should have been looking. The C was high and looking straight across the court and the T had a clear view of the play. The L had 2 players in the paint. JMHO.

I like the philosophy, but don't agree 100%.

On this play, as the photo shows, L's primary could well include the KU player being pursued by MSU #1 and cutting by MSU #2. It's the closest competitive matchup besides the two guys across the paint - who aren't doing anything. And even then, L has to be watching wide enough to include the cutter, who starts the play well within L's primary.

As I stated before, I don't think C has a good enough look - too many bodies to see through.

I don't have a problem with L following this play - but he shouldn't have blown his whistle here.

Not because of primaries/secondaries, etc...but because there was no foul.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by refguy

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

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

Great quote.

1. by just another ref is wrong. In this case.

2. Stuff happens. First question you ask if you're going to blow the whistle ought to be "what did the defense do wrong?" In this case, NOTHING.

"Sheesh" right back at ya.