Agree, if the defender is vertical this isn't a foul. In my judgement he isn't vertical. That is all.

Part of my "problem" may be that I have played basketball all my life, coached for many more, and am now trying to learn to be an official and I've got you guys telling me everything that I know about the game is wrong. I need to learn that a guard isn't allowed to go in for a layup and have his path to the basket violated by the defender and get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop and expect a foul. No wonder people ***** about college officials.

Sorry, I will keep my middle school officiating-self out of the deep end from now on.

And I mentioned the other call because someone previously asked how the game ended and the OP said something about how Mizzou fans were complaining. The complaining is due to the perceived inconsistency.

Don't exaggerate. The Missouri player did not get dropped to the floor with a tomahawk chop. In fact the swinging of his arm had nothing to do with how he got to the floor. He went to the floor because he was moving at a high rate of speed at an opponent who is bigger/heavier than him. Now if you want to debate whether the defender had verticality, that's fine and a valid opinion but to say the defender chopped down the opponent is hyperbolizing the play.

Well, now you're saying A1 was tomahawk chopped. :rolleyes:

People b!tch about middle school officials also.

The complaining is b/c Mizzou lost a close game involving officials making decisions late in game.

You have a biased opinion on this, and you're trying to pick hairs to gain a call in your team's favor. You sound bitter and need to blame someone. If you look at more games than just your team's, then you would have a better understanding for how accurate these officials are.

Absolutely!!!


Just because you coached and played does not mean you know the rules. I played too for years and when I became an official I had to relearn rules or learn what the rule actually was based on the common myths I had regurgitated to me for years.

I think this is part of the problem with these discussions. I am not saying this necessarily about you, but working a college Men's game is very different than working many varsity games, both boys and girls games. And part of the problem is this play is not totally uncommon at that level or even many varsity boys games, but might be something you never see at a middle school or even lower level HS game. And I really think that is why many of us will never agree because a middle school official has a different set of motivations than a college official. And this is also why I cannot stand to work girls games because this kind of contact would be expected to be called. Heck I have seen officials call fouls in girls games where no one falls and there is a foul on a made basket. And I think really that is the crux of this issue, because what you are used to working will dictate what you see or what judgment you use.

And we should care about their opinion because........?

Peace

My Grandmaother Gave Me A Physic When I Was Constipated ...
 

F=ma? P=mv?

A bit off-topic, but I was sitting in my car listening to the game before going into to see a high school district final in MO. I heard the end of the game on the radio and as I got out of my car I heard about 100 car doors slamming shut.

Not a good way to start your question. The amount of contact is not the sole determining factor for whether it's incidental or illegal. Inicidental contact may, in fact, be quite severe.

There are two questions that matter.

1. Did the defender do anything wrong? I (and a few others) don't think he did, so we stop asking at this point.

For those who think he did, the next question is whether the shooter was disadvantaged or displaced. He was obviously displaced, so calling the foul would follow.

I have played, coached, sat in the stands and cheered for my sons as they played, will hopefully sit and cheer for my grandkids as they play (down the road a ways). So I understand the whole issue of separating being a fan and being an official. I have had to struggle with it quite a few times.

In this case, you are letting your fan mindset overrule your officiating mindset. That defender did not fly into the shooter - the shooter flew into the defender. The defender did not tomahawk chop anyone.

Jeff, if a player in a Girl's 7th Grade C level game can pull off a block this athletic, I'm not putting a whistle on it! :)

I did not have to. I mentioned them as demonstrable evidence that what i saw is correct. Also the Red Avis advertisement in the corner-tunnel at the KU end of the court. Samething, now you see it, now you don't. Visual evidence that what I saw on my first look is correct and confirmed.

Tell me how I am wrong about B1 not going straight-up. Shoot down my evidence instead of shooting me down because I used that same evidence.

Didn't shoot you down. Just disagreed with you...the contact was created by the shooter, imho.

There it is. We all have people to answer to. If you have the same job at two different employers, and Employer B tells you to do it differently than Employer A, you bitter stick with B's instructions.

However, one of those motivations is one I don't like...

In other words, that block was wicked awesome! Anyone who blocks like that can get away with anything during the play.

That's what I'm hearing.

Actually, 4-27 doesn't say that. 4-40 is the one that says that referring to a player running into a blind screen. Not a very good comparison here.

Maybe, but it's not what we're saying.

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole for lunch.