Unc/uri

[APG]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

There is no way that the URI player committed a foul on this play. The URI player does not shove him at all. The UNC player was already diving for the ball, which makes him liable if he clips him, which he does. This should absolutely have been a tripping foul.

That should be a tripping foul all the time and it has been a POE the whole season.

If you would put your life on calling that mess vs. calling the tripping foul, careers don't last long calling the not so obvious vs. calling the blatant, out in the open, POE foul.

I'm going to have to agree here. I have the UNC player diving for the lose ball, missing it, and in the process tripping the URI player from behind.

Let's say there is a push though on the play, I think the official needs to come in with the call. You have illegal contact which caused another play to trip an opponent. You either have a team control foul (push) or you have a trip. I don't see how you can have neither.

[Raymond]

I don't see an OBVIOUS foul. Play happened fast--shot, rebound, change of direction.

Easy to disect with replay, not so obvious in real time.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't see an OBVIOUS foul. Play happened fast--shot, rebound, change of direction.

Easy to disect with replay, not so obvious in real time.

Sorry I have to disagree, I didn't need replay. My buddy said hey look at this play and I turn my head, see it once and said foul. easy tripping foul, and its even a POE. You could not be more supported. If they call that foul I guarantee you it would have been on the clips that John Adams will show at the beginning of next season showing officials following the POE guidelines, even at a crucial point in a game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Sorry I have to disagree, I didn't need replay. My buddy said hey look at this play and I turn my head, see it once and said foul. easy tripping foul, and its even a POE. You could not be more supported. If they call that foul I guarantee you it would have been on the clips that John Adams will show at the beginning of next season showing officials following the POE guidelines, even at a crucial point in a game.

More of your pro "favor the offense" philosophy/training coming through.

Now if what you have written were true, shouldn't the play show up on the NCAA video for next season whether it was whistled or not?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

More of your pro "favor the offense" philosophy/training coming through.

Now if what you have written were true, shouldn't the play show up on the NCAA video for next season whether it was whistled or not?

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"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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?"

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.

[CLH]

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.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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"

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.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

More of your pro "favor the offense" philosophy/training coming through.

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.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Sorry I have to disagree, I didn't need replay. My buddy said hey look at this play and I turn my head, see it once and said foul. easy tripping foul, and its even a POE. You could not be more supported. If they call that foul I guarantee you it would have been on the clips that John Adams will show at the beginning of next season showing officials following the POE guidelines, even at a crucial point in a game.

Where is the POE that concerns this play?? Did it come out directly from the NCAA or is it in the rule book POE's

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Where is the POE that concerns this play?? Did it come out directly from the NCAA or is it in the rule book POE's

Its been one of John Adams' "absolutes" all year! When a player is tripped and it causes him to lose the ball, it should be deemed a foul. Or at least those are the words that came out of his mouth in Atlanta at the meeting.

[cmathews]

I was just curious because it isn't in the rule book POE's

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cmathews

I was just curious because it isn't in the rule book POE's

It's discussed in the preseason video the NCAA puts out.