If you are having to do a measurement based on slow motion measuring of the blue lights and windows in the far background, then the defender did nothing wrong. The shooter created the contact and the ball was blocked cleanly. I still say this was a great no-call by the crew. Kudos to them for having patient whistles on this play.

How do you explain the "little guy" knocking the "big guy" (who was allegedly moving into the little guy) backwards?

Well...the difference is none of us are from Missouri.

That was a good call, too. Look at that play from a rules perspective instead of a fan's and you'll understand.

because he is coming forward at a rate faster than the defender. Its physics.

I think this is too general of a statement. If a small player goes into a larger player we can't automatically call a foul. The contact is always going to look worse on a little guy. So I guess a better idea would be for anyone to avoid contact no matter what size.

I did not see the game. However I never like comparing two different plays, because they are different and should be judged based on each individual play.

1) It doesn't result in a foul because the defender did not cause the contact - the shooter did, whether you like that fact or not.

2) It most certainly does have something to do with this play.

3) Incredibly stupid statement.

4) I personally don't care about some other call/play when we are talking about this play. Why would you even bring this up unless you are somehow trying to imply that the officials cheated?

Maybe you need to read Rule 4-27. The rule says that "Contact can be severe" and the contact will be incidental. So the defense would have had to have done something illegal to have a foul in this case and that is debatable.

And there is a little rule called verticality. If the defender is vertical, which I believe he was then they cannot be called for anything unless you just want to make someone that does not the rule happy.

I really hate it when people twist what people say here to try to make their argument. No a little guy that runs into a bigger player is going to get knocked over. And we cannot call a foul under the rules if we only look at the result of the contact and not what the players did illegal. Just like we do not call a PC foul on a smaller player that runs into a legal standing defender and bounces off and falls to the floor, we should not call a foul just because a little guy falls either on this kind of play. Unless the defender jumped completely forward to an airborne shooter and knocked the shooter down, then maybe you are right. And it should be expected by using common sense that someone is going to fall near the basket when players are going hard to the basket. We as a group love to find reasons to call fouls on the defenders and often never give them the benefit of the doubt, but we allow offensive players to do all kinds of things and the offensive player is not necessarily in a legal position either.

Peace

Some officials have more experience & better judgment than others.

And?

Alotta fanboy talk in that statement! If the defense gets a block clean up top & then crashes into a jump shooter, I agree.
Two players going up & meeting in the middle is not the same play.

Just like the old tv show, That's Impossible! Check that, Thats Incredible... but still impossible.

Next time purchase your foul insurance :rolleyes:

Its hard for me in this situation, obviously. I am an official. I am a Mizzou alum and fan.

From an official's view, these two plays are both fouls by the letter of the rules. The shooter's attempt doesn't end until he lands, therefore whether he got ball before contact matters not. There is excessive contact that the defender creates.

From a fan's perspective, I see a guy go up for a layup and get creamed (no call) and then I see another guy go up and get the benefit of a hand check call (very minimal contact that disadvantaged him very little if at all). The whole thing stinks.

Easy. When the contact is not illegal.

IMHO this play is indicative of the type of call selection that differeniates officials and what level of play they can referee. This is simply not a foul at really any level and especially anything above middle school ball.

My HS assingor would skewer any official who made this call and I'm pretty confident in saying that 99% of the college officials/assignors that I have had
the opportunity to chat with would do the same.

And people who are saying that the defender is moving forward and even guestimating how many feet he would have landed are just flat out wrong. Have you guys ever played the game, ever blocked a shot, ever attempted a contested lay-up? I already know how some will react to that question but it says something to me.

I'm just baffled that there are multiple people aruging extensively that there should be a whistle on this play.

Do you work big school boys varsity games? Or any college men's games?

I'm just curious. Because every place I lived if you call fouls like the one in the video you probably wouldn't be on the top of anyone's preferred list.

Verticality as a principle does not mean the defender is going to take off and land in the exact same location, BTW.

Forgive me but what rule are you referring to? I gave you a rule that clearly says that all contact is not a foul and if normal movement is not affected it should not be a foul and you are saying by rule this play should be a foul? What rule are you referencing? If the defender is vertical how can they be in an illegal position? An airborne shooter does not get a "no fly zone" because they are going to the basket.

Peace

The bold statements show why you aren't impartial and sound like the fans that we try to get away from by posting on this forum.

So you're saying you couldnt get picked up & work games in that conference honestly?

Correction: He's an airborne shooter unitl he lands, but the try ends when it is certain the throw is unsuccessful. And seeing how KU had possession as your guy is laying on the wood, that try was done.

Excessive contact? Now you want a F1?
Creamed? Dont know about THAT.

I get the fact that you are frustrated because your team lost a game they shouldn't have. Wasn't Mizzou up by 19 or so in the second half?

But this statement is just wrong...the shooter creates the contact - he is the one that launches himself forward, not the defender.