Unc/uri
 

Did anyone see the end of the game?

Was the reason for a no call, the fact that the UNC player was pushed by a RI player?

couldn't tell if it was a foul and not sure which ref would have seen it. trail probably was blocked, center didn't really have a view of it and the new lead wouldn't be able to tell if the guy tripped or was fouled.

Video?

Snaq, i am computer illiterate. I wish i knew how.


Edit,

In case anyone is wondering computers arent the only thing im illiterate in.

UNC advances to NIT final on controversial call - The Dagger - NCAAB Blog - Yahoo! Sports

Looking at the play, the new L (old T) is running to the baseline and probably gets straight lined on the play. The C (who I think would have the best look) has a few bodies between him and where the contact happened; he probably didn't see it through the players in front of him. All this occurred in a split-second.

Thanks, he was pushed into him. If there's a call to be made, it's a team control push.

Well, the writer did use the word "egregious", so it makes the story much more believable. :rolleyes:

I agree with Snaqs - there are 2 RI players with hands in the back of the NC player that went down, so who caused what, exactly? I don't see a missed call here.

I saw the game on TV and rewound it over and over again. The "C" had the best look at it and was actually in the process of raising his hand. He gets it just to about his waist and lets it go then hustles off the floor. The big question is: Was he going up with a violation or a foul? Obviously the URI player had some nice sliding distance and most people would THINK travel.
My first reaction, prior to replay, and I am sure JR and others will jump on me, was a trip foul. Had he been able to keep his balance I think you have nothing, however, since the player went sprawling across the floor you have to ask yourself "How did the player end up on the floor?" Watching replay I see where there was a scrum and it looks like a URI player contacts a UNC player who in turns causes the URI ball handler to lose balance and hit the floor. The contact prior to all of that I would put down as loose ball incidental since no one was held or displaced. The UNC player tries to cut in front of the URI players, GREAT hustle, ends up going down and IMO knocks the URI dribbler off balance
SINCE I WASN"T THERE, I would really like to know what the C was going to go with before he stopped the hand. But that is just me, I'm curious like a cat!!!

1+

-Josh

The C's best angle was on the URI players with their hands in the back of the UNC player falling to the floor. My first reaction was that any call would be a push (team control), and replay confirmed it. I can see passing on it, too, as the only result of the offensive push was their own player lost the ball.

Clearly a foul. No legal guarding position. Contact created the turnover. Advantage fouler. Good night, the cross body block on the two guys following the play could easily have been a foul. They could have guessed and got a call right in that mix.

Anyone who thinks "travel" on this isn't really paying attention. He never holds the ball.

And that prior contact is only incidental if you ignore all the contact. You can't call the foul on the UNC player here. He was displaced, right into the URI dribbler. It's incidental because the offensive contact simply caused a turnover, it didn't benefit the offense. My guess, since the C held his arm down, is he was going with a TC foul and decided it didn't need called there. Or, he was initially thinking of calling the trip, then replayed the events and realized the "tripper" was pushed into the ball handler.

If a defender gets pushed into a ball handler by a teammate of the ball handler, and it causes the ball handler to travel, I'm going with the travel most times. Same principal here.

SNAQ I will agree that there is NO travel on that play. I was being facetious! However, I don't see how the contact prior to the UNC player tripping the URI player is anything but incidental. Again, from my original view and the replay IMO, this is a good loose ball hustle play by all. However, once the URI player hits the ground you have to ask how he got there. He got there b/c his feet were clipped by the UNC player who was diving on the floor. Now had the URI players been a little more assertive going after the lose ball and not letting the UNC player slip between them, I don't think any of this would have happened
Again, I would have loved to been a fly on the wall and listen to what the officials said about it afterwards. I can hopefully ASSUME he wasn't going with a travel, because then I would have HAD to criticize!!!!:D

When officiating at that level you either see it or don't see it; make the call or non-call from there. Guessing is not an option.

Either they're both incidental, or you have to call the first one.

That initial contact isn't incidental because:
1. The players did not have equal positions.
2. The UNC player was displaced.

It is incidental because:
3. There was no advantage gained by the offense.

if a foul was called a blogger at yahoo would be whining about the horrible call.

I have no idea, I did not talk to the officials. ;)

Peace

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.

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.

The floor is open for discussion.

SCACCHoops.com: Video: Controversial End To UNC/Rhode Island


Sorry, just saw this link was already posted.

Take a look at Williams at end of first video. To me, he's almost expecting a call and body language seems to say "whew".

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?

No, he didn't shove him, he just pushed him. Even the still at the bottom of the blog, the 2nd video, clearly shows the URI player's hands on the UNC player. Accidental does not equal incidental. They may want that foul called on the defense in the NBE, but not in high school nor, I suspect, in college.

To me, you either have the team control foul or nothing. You can justify a no-call by the fact that there is clearly no advantage gained by shoving your opponent into your teammate causing your teammate to lose the ball. In fact, calling the foul gives an advantage to the fouling team by stopping the clock and forcing UNC to inbound the ball again.

Wouldn't you say a push in an opponent's back that causes him to trip a ballhandler is placing the pushed player at a disadvantage? If you really think there was a push there, I think you have to come in and get it. I doubt UNC is going to be angry that you stopped URI's potential fast break situation and gave them back the ball up one.

Just a question, say the offense didn't end up losing the ball. I'm guessing you'd come in with the foul then?

I'd say that if experienced and knowledgable posters can't even come close to a consensus as to whether a foul should or should not have been called, even after viewing repeated replays, it's kinda tough to fault the officials for not calling anything on this play.

In real life, when in doubt, no whistle.

Exactly. If after disecting the play in slow motion we still have varying views on the play how can anyone say that the play in real time is "obvious" in either direction?

In real time, hard to say. Honestly, the way I see the video, that's what the C appears to be doing when his arm starts to go up. He seems to withdraw when A1 loses the ball. I'd love to pick his brain on that play.

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.

And I wouldn't be that surprised if different college-level evaluators after multiple viewings might also fail to come to a consensus.

And my personal opinion is that when there's doubt, go to the "no call" and hope that you get an evaluator that agrees with you. :D

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.

ok
 

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

Which leads me to think the official had a really good reason for pulling his hand back down; like maybe he felt the push caused the trip and calling the push would give the fouling team an advantage not intended by the rules. Just guessing, though.

It must be the heat I experienced last week, but yet again we agree!! While I am in the tripping foul camp as stated earlier, but I agree with the when in doubt no call philosophy. Sort of just b/c it LOOKS like a travel, ie player grasping the loose ball and sliding across the floor, doesn't mean it is. Also, as a teaching point that type of play will stick in your head and if you are corrected by an evaluator you will have a better grasp of what to do next time and why!

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

I haven't said anything about this, but I didn't even see Ed Corbett flinch at the play. Ill watch again later tonight, but I remember watching and he didn't do anything! When u "chicken wing" a no call, your hand makes it way farther than your hip. That could have been the start of a run for all we know.

Could have been, but he was in mid run at the time. :) I've stopped many a hand raise right around the waist line; other times I end up pulling a Fonz. I'll go back and watch it again.

after further review, it's very unclear. Looking at the timing more closely, his arm goes up a bit late it seems for it to be what I was thinking. After watching the shorter video, I'm even more convinced he was pushed into the contact. The arms even follow through on the push.

I'm having trouble seeing how any official on the floor could have possibly had a clear line on contact causing a clear and immediate adv/dis in this situation. Without better line of sight for someone on something more conclusive I can see the no call here.