Request for APG- UNLV vs Colardo state

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Fiasco's statement is ridiculous. The defender tripped the offensive player. This cannot be incidental contact, and should be called a foul on any level.

Define "tripped."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Define "tripped."

I can't see the video here at work (all YouTube videos cut off after no more than a minute), 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.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

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

[JRutledge]

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]

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]

Defensive foul. Not even close.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Well the defender should not be in that situation so calling the foul is OK by me. But looking at the video I can see a case for not calling a foul. Real time this is probably an easy call.

Peace

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Define "tripped."

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

[Adam]

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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

...
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]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

"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]

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]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.