One Last Play

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

One last play:



First of all, I believe this play is a blocking foul as I have the defender moving forward at the time of contact thus no LGP.

I think on the play, the administering official guessed on the play and was too focused on the thrower...especially seeing as the thrower wasn't being pressured. Even if he was, I was always thought you have to officiate the play around you on the throw-in and not focus solely on the thrower. Perhaps the official could have also been deeper towards the backcourt before he bounced the ball?

Also, with the new rule changes in NF, this is a perfect example of a team control foul.

Obvious charging foul. Inexperienced official. You note that he is not looking at the right action. He says, "player control" foul. The guy doesn't ever have the ball during the entire play. He give the PC signal, not the push/charge.

Lastly, the officials fail to switch following the foul. Even after the second foul near the end of the clip, it appears that they may not switch. The newish guy is simply standing there at T.

[APG]

Can't say I agree with your assessment of a charging call...I have the defender moving forward thus losing legal guarding position. Even if the defender stops momentarily before contact, I'd say the defender needs to re obtain LGP by getting two feet on the floor, torso facing the defender, and in this case, would have to give the proper time and distance for a moving player w/o the ball.

As far as the mechanics, not every place follows NF mechanics. I know in this situation, where I've worked, we only switch on shooting fouls in two person, no switching on offensive fouls, and no long switches.

Finally, the official in question was in his first year in the video.

[CLH]

I have to agree with the the offensive foul on this play. The defender is maintaining his position on the offensive player who is retreating. He is entitled to his spot on the floor, provided he obtained it legally, which he does. Offensive player suddenly decides to change his direction and goes to and through a legally established defender.

[tref]

One last play?? Whats up with that... keep em coming APG!

Those that say charge, I ask you to look at the left hand of the defender at the :15 mark, he clearly impedes the offensive players forward progress prior to the crash. IMO that is the first foul.

I would've liked to see the T get behind that matchup before administering the throw-in. But to be honest he was so locked in on the the non-guarded thrower, I dont think depth could have helped here. Maybe the thrower was a known violator in those parts

[CLH]

Originally Posted by tref

One last play?? Whats up with that... keep em coming APG!

Those that say charge, I ask you to look at the left hand of the defender at the :15 mark, he clearly impedes the offensive players forward progress prior to the crash. IMO that is the first foul.

I would've liked to see the T get behind that matchup before administering the throw-in. But to be honest he was so locked in on the the non-guarded thrower, I dont think depth could have helped here. Maybe the thrower was a known violator in those parts

Well, theres an old saying about elephants and ants when deciding fouls. If someone has to look on film and tell me look at this particular second of the play to find some little contact with a hand, that doesn't even rise to ant size for me. It may even go down to flea size I would stay away from "yeah but look at this" on reviewing a play. The decision to be made on this play is not about that hand, it's the b/c, no need to over analyze it.

Just my thoughts partner!

[tomegun]

From the comfort of my computer, I looked at the play several times so I can see why some would say offensive. At the time of the play, and assuming I was watching the players from the beginning, I probably would have called a block.

For those who say they wish he would have got behind the play before inbounding the ball: how far would you like him to go? He isn't especially close to the inbounder and at some point he has to open up as opposed to moving back - he could end up "bouncing" the ball from 20 feet away otherwise.

[tref]

Originally Posted by CLH

Well, theres an old saying about elephants and ants when deciding fouls. If someone has to look on film and tell me look at this particular second of the play to find some little contact with a hand, that doesn't even rise to ant size for me. It may even go down to flea size I would stay away from "yeah but look at this" on reviewing a play. The decision to be made on this play is not about that hand, it's the b/c, no need to over analyze it.

Just my thoughts partner!

Ok, if impedes away from the ball are mere fleas to you, so be it.

If we are allowing A1 to play through it (as he is the intended receiver) I got a block... either way its "staying here."

Originally Posted by tomegun

For those who say they wish he would have got behind the play before inbounding the ball: how far would you like him to go? He isn't especially close to the inbounder and at some point he has to open up as opposed to moving back - he could end up "bouncing" the ball from 20 feet away otherwise.

I like to be a few steps behind the deepest in bounds matchup (when possible). I understand about opening up to the court, but I also want to put myself in the best position possible to see plays like this in its entirety & also to referee the quck steal. I've found that positioning myself to be one play ahead of the throw-in results in getting unexpected plays correct.
IMO if a steal occured in this play the T (new L) is already beat.