Unc/uri

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

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.