Butler-VCU (or VCU-Butler) Conversation

[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.

[Adam]

I don't know Nevada's reasoning, but mine is simple. The contact on the knee was incidental, no advantage either way. The contact on the torso, however, was a PC foul.

Just because the defender sticks his knee out doesn't absolve the offensive player from responsibility. If you judge the contact on the knee "caused" the contact on the torso, then go with the block.

Oh, and the head/shoulders thing is rule now, not philosophy. 10-6-8

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't know Nevada's reasoning, but mine is simple. The contact on the knee was incidental, no advantage either way. The contact on the torso, however, was a PC foul.

Just because the defender sticks his knee out doesn't absolve the offensive player from responsibility. If you judge the contact on the knee "caused" the contact on the torso, then go with the block.

Oh, and the head/shoulders thing is rule now, not philosophy. 10-6-8

oh ok thank you for that. So you believe he hits him in the torso?? Maybe the shoulder but I can barely see torso, but after watching it by play pausing the super slo mo I'm ok with ppl saying offensive foul... I just believe the player could have gotten by with less contact without the knee and the elbow being stuck out and also after play-pausing I believe the defender leans over and forward(into) the off. player but that's just what I am seeing. Player's leaning, stepping forward and sticking parts of their body outside their plane is not legal to me. That may just be me.

[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