Tenn St/Murray St
 

Opinions on block/charge situation with 4.4 seconds left.

I have a charge, especially since the crew had called a similar play a PC a few minutes earlier.

(btw...I love YouTube. I knew someone would have this posted in a heartbeat)

Murray State beats Tennessee State - YouTube

I liked a no-call with 4.4 seconds left because the offensive avoided alot of the contact and the defensive let himself fall. The offensive player landed on his feet. Only the defender ended up on the floor. Despite the comments by the talking head, I agreed with the no-call.

I can't comment on the earlier call. I tuned in late to the telecast.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4fOdXVkqnl4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And I'd be okay with the no-call (on the merits of the play itself), but would have liked to have seen the baseline camera angle.

Hard to tell by video, I'll go with the no call because the lead had a very good angle/look at it.

They eventually showed a low-angle view which looked like it was shot from in front of the broadcasters' position. Hopefully someone somewhere puts that up on YouTube.

I'll put up a clip of the play when I next game the opportunity if another clip of the play isn't posted.

What do you guys think about the final shot though? I didn't see any officials waving off the shot, though the defender caught and shot with only 0.3 remaining

I believe the clock was reset to 1.1s after the OOB violation.

Correct.

The play could be a charging foul or a no call, but not a PC.
There is contact, but it is not solid contact.

I watched the video numerous times and was able to deem that the try was released prior to the contact, so the basket would have counted even had a charging foul been called.

Of course, Tenn State would have been awarded a 1-1 at the other end as Murray State already had six team fouls in the second half at the time of this play. This would have provided the opportunity to tie the game with FTs.

By chance do you work NCAA Women's games?

I only ask because it has been my observation that the officials on the women's side most frequently call this level of contact a charging foul while those on the men's side most often ignore it.

I thought the same as NV: release, then contact.

The feet of the defender were right on the lane line. He was in great position to "take the charge". I wonder why this level of contact is not a foul. I don't believe it's "minor" or "minimal" contact. Though in this case, I do think that B may have been leaning back when the contact happened.

If that's the way NCAA-M want it called, then so be it. My personal opinion is to follow the rule more closely than the philosophy. Count the basket, call the charging foul, and award the 1+1 at the other end of the court.

However, I only work HS (and soon college!) here in small town Canada, and not national TV NCAA-M games. :p

From the video, it looks to me that the offensive player does not go directly through the defender, but catches him to one side of his torso.

To be more descriptive, it appears that the contact is on the right pectoral, bicep, and the front of the right shoulder of the defender, then the offensive player is able to slide away and step down to the end line instead of continuing through the defender. It also seems to be significant that the offensive player stays on his feet. By the book, this certainly could be a charge, but this is the level of contact of which I wrote that NCAAW refs are mostly whistling and NCAAM refs are mostly ignoring. That's my observation from viewing the TV games.

Gotcha.


I'd like to see the end line angle, like APG mentioned as well.

Hey Nev -

Yes, I do. That's also why I forgot the charge/PC rule which still exists on the men's side. Between NFHS and NCAAW I haven't had to apply that one since the last time I worked an adult rec game, which was years ago.

I do agree with you regarding what we call vs. what NCAAM call. We're more inclined to put a whistle on those plays because from what I've found the women's coaches want us to make a call one way or another.

The no call is correct here. Defender is trying to get in there and create contact — he is moving slightly under the shooter. The shooter doesn't make very much contact though. You can tell, because the shooter never goes to the floor.

This is what a flop looks like folks.

I'd like to see the play that "was similar just a few minutes earlier".

First viewing, I say no call.

I say if this was in the early part of the half. This would be a PC. By it being with 4.4 seconds left you will not get this call.

That is awful thinking and I hope that you don't really referee that way.

It was not a PC at any point in the game. A1 landed followed by incidental contact with B1.

Won't get past middle school with that mindset in most areas.

So, it's ok to crash even after you land. You stated yourself he returned back to the floor and followed by incidental contact. So he landed safely and still crashes into the defender.

How is this awful? The shooter is airborne returns back to the floor safely and still crashes into the defender.

The awful thinking is that it is one call early in the half and a different call with 4.4 seconds left.

The difference is that he ajudges the contact to be incidental while you are calling it a crash. Those are two very different things and why you are not in agreement.

Snaqwells you should be a fortune teller. The one thing I will not do is allow GROUPTHINK influence how I should apply a rule. I stand by my assessment. You will not get this call with that little time on the clock versus the early part of the half.

I really enjoy how you and your GROUPTHINK MEMBERS can make an assessment of others and haven't even seen them on the court/film/person or anything.

I stand by my assesment. The same principle applies if this play happened at half court. A crash happened

Every stop to think that it's not GROUPTHINK, but several individuals agreeing, which makes it a CONSENSUS?

My response was based on what you WROTE. It's awful thinking. And if you referee like that, it's awful. I don't need to see you on the court to determine that.

You can be a great guy and a good referee and still be wrong :)

A crash involves two people ... in this clip only one went to the floor.

Brad, come on!! You're a very knowledgeable individual. You know that same exact call will not be made with that little time left on the clock.

The mindset: Let the player decide the game. Not realizing officials decide the game when they adjudge to rule that amount of contact as incidental with that little time left on the clock.

Not calling a foul is not "letting the players decide" the game. This is not what they teach at the NCAA or NBA level. It shouldn't be done in high school either and, if it is, it's wrong.

For the record, I think it should be a no call early in the half, late in the half, end of the game, at half court, under the basket, in the box, with a fox, on a boat, with a goat, etc.

truerookie, i have to agree with brad here. if you think this is a foul at any other time or place in the game than it is a foul with 4.4 seconds left. if you dont think it is a foul, than it shouldnt be a foul regardless of time or place in the game. if you base your calls on the philosophy that you would call this a foul early in the game but not late, you wont be in this business for long.

GROUPTHINK? Sort of sounds like a synonym for consistency to me.

While you rail on about GROUPTHINK you apparently need to learn to read my posts. I said it wasn't a PC at any point in the game. And I said there was incidental contact after A1 landed--incidental contact meaning no foul.

And if there was a foul, it would have to be charging/pushing since the try was released. How do you have a PC foul in an NCAA-M's game after the try is released?

I don't know I don't concern myself with the differences. I don't work those level.

:D, In your opinion.

Ok!

Look I will just observe MARCH MADNESS and see how consistent a similiar play being discussed here will be called throughout the tournment.

Groupthink, it really is the choice of a new generation.

At any rate, I'll join the burgeoning hivemind and say I have no call on this. Not in the first minute of the game, not at the end where there is much fame to gain.

Neigh...no call, no way.

If you watched games this weekend you would have seen similar plays that had no whistle on them.

And what you label "GROUPTHINK" is often "EXPERIENCE". And maybe some with more experience than you, including the officials in that game, have determined the difference between a "crash" (Harvard/Penn) and "incidental contact" (TSU/MSU).

F*!@ing HILARIOUS!! Post of the Month! :D

This is a great no call! (I'm going with the majority here b/c I don't know how to think for myself :rolleyes:)

How Did You Like The Lorax ???
 

Brad: You're a few days late. Dr. Suess' birthday was Friday, March 2.

Wow! I didn't even see Brad's "Dr. Seuss" response. The groupthink is strong with this bunch. :eek:

Grape, My Favorite Color ...
 

The Kool Aid was delicious.

There's a Jonestown joke in there to be told but I'll save it for somebody else...the punchline is too long.

CAPITALIZING IT doesn't make it true, champ.

My issue, and the mindset to which I was referring, is your comment that you would call this early but not late. If you're going to make this call early, you need to make it late as well. The idea that a foul should be let go because of the point in the game is the same shrinking violet mindset that gives us comments like, "the goal of the official is to not be noticed."

Personally, it's a classic case of the defender bailing on the play too soon and turning a possible charging call into a no-call. I'm not calling this in a middle school or high school game, 5 seconds in or with 5 seconds left.

As for my comment that you judged an assessment. It has nothing to do with your ability, but with the mindset. If you're afraid to make a call because it's late in the game, then you'd be better off trying to follow in Doug Gottlieb's footsteps than Karl Hess.

IMO this is an EASY no-call at ANY point in the game for the reasons already stated.

And I guess the new thing when your opinion is clearly in the minority is to accuse everyone else of "groupthink." I guess that's easier than "thinking" about your opinion and realizing that you are WRONG.

As my good friend Dave always says:

"When it's you against the world, back the world."

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!

Brad, we have worked hard to indoctrinate these people over the years. Don't just be throwing away all our brain-washing techniques and calling it "consensus". Geesh.:p

And as far as the play and the ensuing dialogue...no call at any point in the game. There just isn't enough to call a foul here. And the "don't make that call at the end of a game" mindset really went by the wayside about 6 or 7 years ago.

Snaqwells, I am aware of that. I am enjoying this :). I take a position different from others for the sake of discussion. I still stand behind my assesment though.

Does the groupthink comment bother you? If not why continue to attempt to justify it?

You still say you'd call this a foul early in the game? But you wouldn't in the last 5 seconds when it matters most?

Ok, I can buy that one Camron.

Justify what? Why would I have to justify YOUR comment? Now you are just not making sense, which I guess wouldn't be a first. :rolleyes:


Funny, I just watched John Adams' season ending video in which he criticizes a crew for not making a illegal screen call with 9.0 seconds left in a 3-point game and his commentary was basically "a foul is a foul no matter what the time on the clock".

So, I'm wondering, what GROUPTHINK Tank is controlling your thought patterns?

I saw Illinois throw some of the most blatant illegal screens that went uncalled yesterday in quite some time. I wish I had some timestamps to go with my little rant, but I was amazed at how much bad screening the crew allowed.

May be a contributing factor to the fact there was a whole section in this video about illegal screens.

The one I referenced with 9.0 seconds left came under the heading "A foul is a foul".

great no call. If anything its a block, but you can't really see how much contact occurs from that angle.

BNR, my point exactly. My position was at times officials will not make that call towards the end of the game. Opposed to making a similar call in early parts of the game.

Are you sure in the judgement of the official the screens were not incidental contact? You know basketball is a contact sport.;)

I have been semi-following this thread since it started. I think Brad and some others have said that they would not have called this a foul because they wouldn't have called it a foul in the first five seconds of any period. I can live with that consistency of call even though I would have called it a charge at any point in the game; everybody knows my mantra: CHARGE IT!! But that is another story.

The problem I see and Brad and others agree with me, is the mindset that some officials have: let the players decide the game. Players DO decide the game, and if this was a foul in the first five seconds of the game it had better damn well be a foul in the last five seconds of the game because players decide the game not the officials.

MTD, Sr.

A block? Why?

Not at this level. At least not if they want to move on.

I saw at least 2 3-point baskets made because one of the Illinois's bigs illegally stepped in front of the defender. Quite a few others I would've shipped in my games, too.

I agree.

A no call by me in first five minutes and at end of game.

I said if ANYTHING its a block, meaning no way its a charge. From that angle it doesn't look like LGP is established, B1 leans over into the path of A1. In this case it doesn't look like this created a significant disadvantage to A1.

Hypothtical; if the existing level of contact would have caused A1 to lose the ball out of bounds does this no-call become a call? I'm just curious.

I can see that.