2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Vernon Macklin's And 1:

Definitely travelled first. And I don't think the defender did any illegal to earn a blocking call though I do think he flopped, but his flop didn't affect the shooter.

While I think the defender in question embellished the contact some, I believe there's definitely enough contact that you have to put air in the whistle.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

This play is being referenced in another thread.

YouTube - Possible Intentional Foul?

Run of the mill shooting foul or upgrade to an intentional?

Not as obvious an intentional foul as I was expecting based on all the chatter here. Have no problem if they had come together and gone with IF but seeing the play at normal speed the first time I thought the player initially made a play on the ball. Further scrutiny leads to going IF but I can understand how the officials didn't go with an IF at the moment.

[Camron Rust]

I have no idea who's idea it was to lump all discussions about the games into one thread but it is a horrible idea. It is nearly impossible to tell which comments go with which play at this point.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'd have a charge on the plays presented in posts 121, 123 and 139.

And that is the way, if we're going to lump all of these into one discussion, to reference the plays.

121...defender slid under late, still moving sideways after the shooter was airborne and the contact was largely on the leading shoulder...block.

123...defender also late, block....the defender was not in the path at the moment the shooter left the floor...his torso continued to move laterally another 1-2 feet after the shooter jumped and before contact.

139...travel, 2 times....but the contact looked like a charge....except for the constant hand on shooter throughout the play.

148...Intentional foul....no attempt at the ball whatsoever.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not as obvious an intentional foul as I was expecting based on all the chatter here. Have no problem if they had come together and gone with IF but seeing the play at normal speed the first time I thought the player initially made a play on the ball. Further scrutiny leads to going IF but I can understand how the officials didn't go with an IF at the moment.

I respect that, but I have yet to see a legitimate play on the ball. What I do see clearly is an airborne player being grabbed as he's trying to bang one home.

In regards to your "at the moment" comment, I guess time & score does factor in at what we do...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

...
In regards to your "at the moment" comment, I guess time & score does factor in at what we do...

While they may be case in some plays that's not what I meant this time. I meant if my first look at the play I felt like the defender may a legit play on the ball I can see how at that moment the officials on the court thought the same.

I agree that after reviewing the play we have an IF.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Wow, after seeing the play, it's an easy int in my games. Of course, I recognize that Rut's area probably has a different effing standard for this play.

But he doesn't even pretend to try to get the ball when he grabs the waist.

Actually I think the first action was to slap at the ball. The other arm was around him, but the foul was on the shooting arm. And no this is not an area thing, this is a judgment thing. I probably call more Intentional Fouls than many people here or in my area, and I call the first action, not the second action or action that did not affect the play. If we call what a player does second a lot, then you will have intentional fouls in almost every end of game situation.

I would rather error on the side of not calling an intentional in this case where it is not "obvious" to everyone then call one that we have to debate.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually I think the first action was to slap at the ball. The other arm was around him, but the foul was on the shooting arm. ...
Peace

This is what I saw initially also. That's why in the other thread I was surprised not to see an OBVIOUS intentional foul the first time I watched the play after reading about it.

[just another ref]

Not even sure if there was any contact on the arm. The grab around the waist is what stopped the shot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not even sure if there was any contact on the arm. The grab around the waist is what stopped the shot.

The official in question had a much better angle on the entire play than we did. So what stopped the shot or not is based on one angle and the angle the official did not have.

Peace

[tref]

Really?! I'll agree that he had a "different" angle, but he hardly had a "better" angle! He was chasing the play down & actually was straightlined when the defender wrapped him with the right arm.

I don't know about you, but I make more CC when I receive the play as opposed to chasing them down.

My point about this particular play is that, time & score obviously matter because the same play at the end of the game or after a hard foul would result in a discussion on double whistles, at the very least.

IMO, the C had the best look, but the L gave him the look like, "I got it, I got it!"

[APG]

Originally Posted by tref

Really?! I'll agree that he had a "different" angle, but he hardly had a "better" angle! He was chasing the play down & actually was straightlined when the defender wrapped him with the right arm.

I don't know about you, but I make more CC when I receive the play as opposed to chasing them down.

My point about this particular play is that, time & score obviously matter because the same play at the end of the game or after a hard foul would result in a discussion on double whistles, at the very least.

IMO, the C had the best look, but the L gave him the look like, "I got it, I got it!"

I think lead had a decent look but the C had the best look at the play, and they both didn't have an intentional even after getting together.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

Really?! I'll agree that he had a "different" angle, but he hardly had a "better" angle! He was chasing the play down & actually was straightlined when the defender wrapped him with the right arm.

The right arm went for the ball.

Well that was the angle he had and unlike you or me he did not have multiple replays to break down the play. He and his partners had one shot.

Originally Posted by tref

I don't know about you, but I make more CC when I receive the play as opposed to chasing them down.

Maybe, but that is not how many calls are made in my experience. And certainly not on a quick steal and going to the other end of the court. Sorry, I would not use that as an excuse to get a play right or not in this situation.

Originally Posted by tref

My point about this particular play is that, time & score obviously matter because the same play at the end of the game or after a hard foul would result in a discussion on double whistles, at the very least.

IMO, the C had the best look, but the L gave him the look like, "I got it, I got it!"

OK, but that does not mean everyone agrees with that. You can state what you would have done all day long, it was not your call or my call. Easy to sit on my couch and tell others what you would have done or who had the best angle.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Was asked to get this clip and get the forum's response to the call in the chat room yesterday.



Agree/disagree?

Grab the travel first so that you don't end up calling what should have been a PC foul, a block by mistake.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think lead had a decent look but the C had the best look at the play, and they both didn't have an intentional even after getting together.

They sure didn't.

Peace