In the video, it seems the C had an eye on the play. It's amazing that he didn't take the time to talk to the T.
This kind of situation goes to the statement that mis-application of a rule will get us in much more trouble than a judgement call.

Not familiar with NCAA mechanics but to me I don't like the trails position there which undoubtedly lead to the kicked call.

This was either a steal or a rebound and a push up the court. T got to where he could get -- and the mechanics here would be the same as in FED, and the T isn FED would be in (about) the same spot.

The Weed Of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit, Crime Does Not Pay, The Shadow Knows ...
 

Would the correct call have been a little easier to make if there was a "real" division line, not a "shadow" division line, running through the jump ball circle.

if it were me.....if I have definite knowledge and can bring specific info. to my partner, IN THIS SITUATION, i would bring it to him and hopefully he will reverse his call.

"partner - i am 110% certain that the ball NEVER made it into the frontcourt. that should not be a b/c violation."

if he doesn't change it, then i've done all i can.

the goal should be to "get the call right".

How much easier does the call need to be? The ball didn't even come close to touching in the frontcourt!

Itsy, Bitsy, Teenie, Weenie ...
 

Just a little.

Sometimes I think that 3-person mechanics need to be a little more flexible to give the C more responsibility on backcourt violations in transition. That said, this one wasn't even close.

There are many here (perhaps a majority) who think the C, even if they thought differently, should stay out of it. We went through a parallel situation a few months ago and many (perhaps most) said the C should not step in.

Their thinking was that the C can't know whether the T thought the player has crossed the line or simply missed the rule....as such, since it could be a question of judgment, they see that as overriding a judgement to step in and thought the C should stay away.

if the C has DEFINITIVE knowledge, you BETTER come in and get the call right at this point in the game....if an official purposely stays away from a call like this in a game-changing moment - then you've got other issues that mean you probably shouldn't be working on that assignment.

When it comes to rule interpretation, I truly believe any official should come in and assist (provide information) on the call. Once, you have provided the information you have done your job. IMO.

I will go as far to say these same officials will probably say:
It's ok to go without a lanyard.
It's ok not to blow your whistle to bring in substitutions.

These are my opinions and my opinions only!!!

I think on this play, with the miss being so egregious (at least in an official's eyes), if the C had definite information, then he has to go to his partner and provide information. I wouldn't really view this as a judgement call like say a foul...this one is pretty black and white. The dribbler has to have all three points in the frontcourt...not a lot of "judgement" in that.

1. If I were the C and this was one of my games, I would go tell the Trail what I saw.

2. There are certain officials locally who would be livid if I came to them on this play because they see anything like this as a personal affront.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt...I think he is calling a carry :D