The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Request for APG- UNLV vs Colardo state (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/89693-request-apg-unlv-vs-colardo-state.html)

Scratch85 Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:16am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 829318)
but if there is any contact between A1 and B1, B1 is behind, and A1 goes to the floor, then it's a foul on B1.

As it relates to the OP, I agree.

FED only: If A1 and B1 are traveling in the same direction, any contact that occurs is the responsibility of B1. If B1 is approaching from an angle, normal screening rules apply to the dribbler.

Indianaref Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:28am

I don't know how you don't have a foul on this play.

JRutledge Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:35am

It looks like a foul, but I am not sure it is a foul. It looks like he could have tripped himself up and yes players fall on their own often. If I called a foul based on this angle, it would be a reasonable guess but still a guess.

Peace

ballgame99 Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:55am

since they both go down at the same time it is clear the defender caused the contact (even without all the slow mo replays). I have a foul.

Camron Rust Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:02pm

Defensive foul. Not even close.

berserkBBK Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 829317)
Seriously? The player behind is responsible for contact. He's not just running behind the player, he's running into the player from behind.

This is what I was have. The contact may be accidental, but not incidental. A clear advantage was gained from the contact.

APG Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:51pm

That's an easy foul on the defensive player.

MD Longhorn Fri Mar 02, 2012 01:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 829324)
It looks like a foul, but I am not sure it is a foul. It looks like he could have tripped himself up and yes players fall on their own often. If I called a foul based on this angle, it would be a reasonable guess but still a guess.

Peace

Agreed, but the fact (obvious in replay, probably not so obvious in real time) that these two begin their falls to the ground simultaneously leads me to relative certainty that the foot-to-foot contact is what caused it.

I agree with those saying 100% foul, but not with those that don't understand how it wasn't called - I doubt anyone was POSITIVE of a foul without looking at the play more than once and likely slowed down.

HawkeyeCubP Fri Mar 02, 2012 01:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 829314)
Define "tripped."

"Fouled." There's a difference between the terms "incidental" and "accidental." The latter does not necessarily equal the former.

Adam Fri Mar 02, 2012 01:55pm

After actually watching it, I really can't understand the no-call. Unless they both miraculously tripped over themselves at exactly the same moment, this one calls itself.

Looks like the lead wants to give the ball back to the offense, but can't justify it since he didn't call the foul. He should have just called the foul.

Raymond Fri Mar 02, 2012 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 829369)
...
Looks like the lead wants to give the ball back to the offense, but can't justify it since he didn't call the foul. He should have just called the foul.

"Just give the ball back to XYZ instead of whistling the foul" has kinda gone to the wayside. And I don't think coaches liked much anyway. Now folks are looking at it as 2 missed calls--missed foul; called the ball out on the wrong team.

Adam Fri Mar 02, 2012 02:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 829372)
"Just give the ball back to XYZ instead of whistling the foul" has kinda gone to the wayside. And I don't think coaches liked much anyway. Now folks are looking at it as 2 missed calls--missed foul; called the ball out on the wrong team.

Possible, I don't use it much anymore, and never in a situation like this.

Rich Fri Mar 02, 2012 02:32pm

This is one situation where an educated guess is necessary. No eyes are fast enough to see the foot step on the heel. It's still a foul.

VaTerp Fri Mar 02, 2012 02:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 829376)
This is one situation where an educated guess is necessary. No eyes are fast enough to see the foot step on the heel. It's still a foul.

Agreed.

I have passed on trips before because I couldnt/didnt see the contact so I can understand a no call.

But in this situation with the player having a clear path to the basket and the way they fell, I think the foul HAS to be called here. And with the advantage of replay its an OBVIOUS foul.

But again, this is a spot where an educated guess is necessary.

JetMetFan Fri Mar 02, 2012 03:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 829297)
I've got incidental contact here. What, you want to penalize the defensive player just for running behind the offensive player?

Good no-call.

No, you want to penalize the defender for knocking down the offensive player which is what he did.

If the offensive player had been the only one to fall I would say the kid tripped over his own feet but since the defender also fell - and they fell at the same time - there had to be some contact. Putting a late whistle on this wouldn't have been optimal but it would've been better than nothing at all.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1