Good call?

I'd like to know why he counted the bucket, that's all. If it's a charge on a dunk, doesn't that mean the ball is through the rim already? That was certainly not the case. However, regarding the actual block/charge, I never got a great look to see if the defender was there in time.

It looked to me like the ball was through and therefore, should have counted. Remember the NCAA men and NFHS rules are different on this as there is no airborne shooter in NCAA men. As for the foul, I think the defender was there in time and that it was the correct call. I'll also note that if Texas had been in the one and one they should have shot free throws, since it would not be a team control foul. I don't think they were at the time, so I believe they got this one right. Someone else can confirm this.

Packerism
 

Was this the play where Billy Packer made another one of his idiotic remarks, "I don't think the official took account of how far he (shooter) was from the basket when he took off.
Based on this logic if you jump towards the basket on a shot and run over a defender, it is always the offensive player who causes the contactno matter how long the defender was standing there.
What a moron.

I did think that the defender was under the basket in this case, and I believe that NCAA rules say this is not a PC???

Re: Packerism
 

Hmmmm, people in glass houses. . .

Just kidding!! Just poking a little fun. ;) But in NCAA rules, it is still considered a PC. In practice, it may be a different matter.

HuMMMMMM!!!
 

I thought it was a NO call. A1 had already jumped and B1 was under the basket. If any call was to be made it should of been a BLOCK. I guess its One of those had to be theres.

Who is that Ref? I noticed he is always close to the action. He really gets close to the players.

Re: Re: Packerism
 

Chuck shouldn't that be in NCAA men's rules?

Sigh. Yes, yes, men's NCAA. I always forget that the women play a different game. But in this case, since we're talking about a play in a men's game, I think I can be forgiven for the oversight. ;)

Think again, my friend ;)

Ok, Dev, I thought again and you know what? I was right the first time. According to NCAA rules it's a PC. However, according to the supplemental guidelines provided for women's official's, standing under the basket is not considered legal guarding position. :p

Chuck

Now you're being wishy-washy ;) Of course you are correct, tho.

On a drive along the baseline, like the play we are talking about, would be a PC foul in Women's.

This philosophy that Woodee is espousing is the cause of the problem. Since many officials, not just Woodee (I'm not picking on him personally), hold this view and are calling the game in this manner, coaches and fans are starting to expect this PC foul to not be called.
My feelings on this are:
This is not the NBA, there is not a semi-circle on the floor, so follow the rules and call this a PC foul. If there is such a strong dislike of this call being made, then they will eventually change the rule, but until they do we should follow it.
Remember the NBA is a show. They are trying to make money. Therefore, they want the game to be as exciting as possible for fans to watch. They want more scoring and more dunks. That is what sells tickets. If that means giving the offensive player an edge when he is attacking the basket by taking away legal guarding position from the defense in that area, they are going to do it. But in NCAA men and NFHS it is still legal to play defense there.

I pose this question,

If "a foul is a foul", why do we ever choose to pass on a call?

Different wave length, my man. The viewpoint of Woodee is based solely on the defensive player's location. It has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage or discretion. He is simply saying that if there is contact under the basket it cannot be a PC foul. Look again at his statement, he even advocates a block being called.
Discretion within the rules and not following the rules are two very different things. Of course, I'll admit that JRut made some excellent counterpoints on this dichotomy in another thread.