It could still end up on the tape, but you have to take into account the morale of the "troops". Would you rather see calls that are made correctly, supporting your guys, or would you rather have repeated clips of missed calls and the boss saying, "why do we keep missing these?"

I don't favor the offense I just think a play where an opponent is already obviously diving for a ball and clips a player in the leg causing him, in turn, to lose the ball should be called a foul every time, and John Adams seems to agree with this "pro philosophy"

Personally I'd rather see the missed calls. Officials learn from them. Most good officials usually know when they've made the right call, but they don't always know when they've made a wrong call.

Good evaluators are usually good multi-taskers also. They can pat someone on the azz at the same time that they're kicking the same azz. And doing it that way shouldn't affect the morale of the troops in any way either. The "troops" should realize that this is just part of a continual learning process.

As usual, jmo.

Did noone else see the ballhandler clip his own calf then start going down? Very seldom do you hear this outta me, but I think they got it right.

I agree, but I have sat in a session (2 big time D1 conference meetings) where an evaluator started letting some guys know they were screwing up and they bucked up and started refuting that they were ever wrong. It was astonishing watching it!

You have to have somewhat of an arrogance and ego to do this job, but to not take criticism from a very well respected referee, is astonishing to me!

I don't know Ed Corbett personally at all but I would love to see them put this up on the clips for next year and be in the room with him when they show it.

Coupla points..take them fwiw...

1) In your mind, it's "obviously". In some one else's mind, it might be "questionable". And that some one else might be the person that had to evaluate this call. We don't know that and probably never will. I have seen cases where 2 different evaluators had completely opposing takes on plays similar to these.

2) I don't think that this play is an example of any "pro" philosophy per se. And I say that with personally not having a clue as to what the pro philosophies really are. I think that it's the exact same philosophy being used at all levels from high school to the pros. And that philosophy is that a foul should be called if the contact puts an opponent at a disadvantage. Whether a player actually has been put at a disadvantage though is and always will be a judgment call. And that's why this play is still being discussed days later.

Yes I did, but did you not see the UNC player's body contact his back heel, causing his foot to do that.

I know how young you are CLH, so you can't tell me you never saw a guy walking down the hall in HS and somebody kick the person's back foot causing them to hit the back of their own foot and fall??? Maybe I just grew up in an immature, redneck small town, but I saw that all the time. Helped my officiating game greatly!!!! haha

I think everyone can see the back foot clip the heel. I think even most agree that the UNC player caused the clip. The point of contention is whether the UNC player was pushed into the ballhandler.

Understandable, and there is no use trying to convince anyone, bc we all have our own eyes and interpretations. It is just so hard for me to look at the UNC player and not think that he is, of his own accord, diving for the basketball. I would think that a kid of that size would have to be shoved so hard from the back to make even a similar type motion to the floor and everybody would be like, "OH DAMN, that kid got shoved so hard!"


But to each his own.

Agree completely. Most good officials are alpha dogs. You'd damn-well better have a lot of self-confidence when you've got 20,000 idiots at the game and many, many more idiots watching on tv (including the ones that write columns) second-guessing your every move. But you also have to learn that we all report to someone, and that someone is always gonna get the final say.

You have to have a big ego, but you can't let that big ego get in the way of learning. And we never stop learning.

I'M OLDER THAN YOU FOOL!!! I'm developing a bald spot remember!?

My bone of contention is that it is taking multiple viewings of the play for folks to get an opinion of the play and there is still no consensus.

So obviously this was not a an obvious call to make, either way, when happening in real-time during a chaotic sequence.

Ah, the magic formula! If only it were as easy to do as to write, we'd all be D1 officials!

I'll say this then leave it be. With a player falling already diving for the ball, it doesn't take much force to change the direction of his momentum so that he ends up landing in a slightly different spot than he would have. In this case, it looks to me that the force from behind changed his trajectory just enough to cause him to hit the URI player.

I've stayed out of this discussion cause it just didn't interest me, but I'm coming around, I guess.

I think the C missed the trip. Nothing more. I don't think the hands were substantial enough (I think they were incidental to the trip) to consider that as the reason for the trip. Reasonable people have disagreed.

I think you\'re a bit confused because I would hardly call the pro philosophy "favor the offense" -- look at backcourt for instance -- i

PRO RULES -- Team A is dribbling the ball and there are 7 seconds on the backcourt count and Team A calls timeout. When they return to the inbound the ball they only have 1 second to get the ball into the front court

NCAA -- Team A is dribbling the ball and there are 9 seconds on the backcourt count and Team A calls timeout. When they return to inbound the ball, they have 10 seconds to get the ball into the front court.


To me it seems like NCAA negates the good defense and pro rewards it.


In this particular play there is nothing pro mentality about it - its a basketball play and called the same at all levels.

B1 was pushed by A2 into A1. You can have a call on A2, a call on B1 or let the whole thing play itself out. No matter the rule set or philosophy involved, those are your options and rules/philosophy are irrelevant to this particular play.