Stay out of my pond!

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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

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

[Raymond]

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..."

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by mick

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

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

-Josh

[mick]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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

-Josh

'Tis.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by Old_School

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by refguy

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

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.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

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.

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by refguy

When a player who does not have legal position causes an opponent to trip and fall, a foul should be called no matter where on the floor the foul occurs and no matter how minor the contact(if any) may be.

Note that I finished your statement above to reflect your adamant opinion that officials must 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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

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.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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.

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.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

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 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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The contact I'm talking about happened right at the 3-point line, so roughly 20ft from the end line.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The supposed contact had to take place about 5 feet above the 3 point line.



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