Butler-VCU (or VCU-Butler) Conversation

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by drofficial

Boys, if that is not a charge (the one where Jamie held the call), then there is no such thing as a charge. Offesive player straight thru torso of defender with LGP. Easy, easy call. I am sure Jamie had a charge...

Like I posted earlier, there is an argument for a blocking foul based on the defender's knee sticking out. Depends if you felt the first contact was to the torso or to the leg.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Like I posted earlier, there is an argument for a blocking foul based on the defender's knee sticking out. Depends if you felt the first contact was to the torso or to the leg.

Hmm. That's what I get for commenting after one view. I think the first contact was with the extended leg/knee, but I think that contact was incidental and had no effect on either player. The contact in the torso, however, was PC foul.

That, of course, is with the benefit of slow motion replay. It's a lot more natural in real time, from the C's angle, to see that outstretched leg and call a block. I can't fault him for that.

[Camron Rust]

Rebounding foul....

Perhaps the call was for the push in the back that moved the VCU player forward a couple of feet before they went up for the ball. Had the Butler player not moved him forward, the Butler player wouldn't have been able to get to the rebound. I'd delay the whistle on that to see if the ball came off in that direction before blowing that a foul.

The style signal provided seemed imply it was for that part of the action.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rebounding foul....

Perhaps the call was for the push in the back that moved the VCU player forward a couple of feet before they went up for the ball. Had the Butler player not moved him forward, the Butler player wouldn't have been able to get to the rebound. I'd delay the whistle on that to see if the ball came off in that direction before blowing that a foul.

The style signal provided seemed imply it was for that part of the action.

Agreed. Delayed whistle with the correct result.

[btaylor64]

Here are my takes on the play just seeing them for what they are and having no idea about the game:

1) I have block- the defender does get into a LGP but the off. player does a good job and I believe he is going to slip by him and the defender sticks his leg out and elbow out to "force" the contact.

2) Definitely not a rebounding foul.

3) Definitely an offensive foul.

I don't like questioning officials calls without talking to the officials in person, these are good plays though and as long as we learn from them I like it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Here are my takes on the play just seeing them for what they are and having no idea about the game:

1) I have block- the defender does get into a LGP but the off. player does a good job and I believe he is going to slip by him and the defender sticks his leg out and elbow out to "force" the contact.

2) Definitely not a rebounding foul.

3) Definitely an offensive foul.

I don't like questioning officials calls without talking to the officials in person, these are good plays though and as long as we learn from them I like it.

I had no doubt that you would have a block on play #1 when you finally posted due to your pro-mentality on block/charge situations.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I had no doubt that you would have a block on play #1 when you finally posted due to your pro-mentality on block/charge situations.

not thinking pro philosophy just not gonna give a kid an offensive foul when he sticks his elbow out to cause the contact. That is outside his "frame" and imo there would have been far less contact had he not done that.

BTW it's not "pro philosophy" it's just rules that I go by. Philosophy would be like saying most refs believe if a player's head is past the defender's shoulders it should be a block. That is philosophy. Rules are more concrete such as, if the defender's body is not in the off. player's path and he doesn't beat him to that spot first then it is a block.. That is a rule.

Didn't want to teach class, but seems you need to be educated on the difference since you want to take pod shots at me.

You saying that to me is like me saying, "yeah I can see you making that call an offenisve foul.... with your high school thought processes..."

I am more than willing to hear your in-depth detailing and reasoning why you think it is an offensive foul other than he takes it in the torso, cause that is not the case at all.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Rebounding foul....

Perhaps the call was for the push in the back that moved the VCU player forward a couple of feet before they went up for the ball. Had the Butler player not moved him forward,
...

You mean like Kenyan Martin pushed Lamar Odom completely under the basket yesterday?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You mean like Kenyan Martin pushed Lamar Oden completely under the basket yesterday?

I saw that play...saw nothing wrong with the play and Lamar Odom would tell you the same thing.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I saw that play...saw nothing wrong with the play and Lamar Odom would tell you the same thing.

There may be nothing wrong with that play at the NBA level but in NCAA and NFHS that is a foul.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There may be nothing wrong with that play at the NBA level but in NCAA and NFHS that is a foul.

True that

[7IronRef]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Like I posted earlier, there is an argument for a blocking foul based on the defender's knee sticking out. Depends if you felt the first contact was to the torso or to the leg.

I agree with the fact that the defense stuck out his leg. That was his only option as the offense was making an attempt to change direction - even if it was just enough to try to avoid the defense.

As far as the attempt to shoot, he was going to shoot. He was leading a 1 on 1 break with everyone else trailing the play by 6-10 feet.

Block, shooting FT's

As far as the rebounding play, the Butler player pushed the VCU player on the release. Although I don't think I would have called a foul on this play. Typically the defense has to withstand a great deal of contact by the offense and by the time they stop loosing ground they are no longer able to jump.

The last play, the Butler player did not establish LGP, but I had the advantage of slow motion. The VCU player had started to elevate before the Butler player had LGP. Without replay, I probably call the PC.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

As far as the rebounding play, the Butler player pushed the VCU player on the release. Although I don't think I would have called a foul on this play. Typically the defense has to withstand a great deal of contact by the offense and by the time they stop loosing ground they are no longer able to jump.

Sorry, but the push created a huge advantage. The defense doesn't have to withstand any contact, especially contact that both displaces and disadvantages them. The only possible (not necessarily valid) complaint is that the whistle was late; but it was the right call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

As far as the attempt to shoot, he was going to shoot. He was leading a 1 on 1 break with everyone else trailing the play by 6-10 feet.

Block, shooting FT's

Was going to is not the same as being in the act of shooting at the time of the contact.

I already wrote that attempting to score was his only option on the play due to the location of the other players, but if he hadn't yet begun his shooting motion then he can't be awarded FTs.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 7IronRef

The last play, the Butler player did not establish LGP, but I had the advantage of slow motion. The VCU player had started to elevate before the Butler player had LGP. Without replay, I probably call the PC.

I completely disagree. He had LGP before the VCU player even took off on his jump stop. Two feet down, facing the offensive player. What do you think he was lacking?

Whether the contact was incidental or not is tough to argue from this angle, IMO, but there's no real question that he had LGP in plenty of time.