Ohio v. Syracuse

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't understand how the Lead calls this from the opposite side of the lane with the secondary defender coming from the C's side. How could the Lead possibly have the best look at this?

This has been a constant pet peeve of mine in NCAAM. A few years ago they hammered into our heads in NCAAW that as the L we shouldn't normally be primary on calls across the lane because we'll get them wrong more than 50% of the time.

Even if the L in this play managed to call it correctly I'd have to question where he'd been looking when the play started if he was able to see the defender clearly.

[Jeremy Hohn]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

This has been a constant pet peeve of mine in NCAAM. A few years ago they hammered into our heads in NCAAW that as the L we shouldn't normally be primary on calls across the lane because we'll get them wrong more than 50% of the time.

Even if the L in this play managed to call it correctly I'd have to question where he'd been looking when the play started if he was able to see the defender clearly.

Agreed.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

This has been a constant pet peeve of mine in NCAAM. A few years ago they hammered into our heads in NCAAW that as the L we shouldn't normally be primary on calls across the lane because we'll get them wrong more than 50% of the time.

Even if the L in this play managed to call it correctly I'd have to question where he'd been looking when the play started if he was able to see the defender clearly.

I could not possibly agree more. And I think 50% is a low number.

[26 Year Gap]

Lead missed the earlier foul on the defender on his side of the lane which allowed him to close on the driver. LGP not there IMO. Might have been a game changer as well, since it swung the momentum.

[Adam]

I understand this was a block, but it sure looks close enough to me that a coach no excuse for getting stupid on it.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I understand this was a block, but it sure looks close enough to me that a coach no excuse for getting stupid on it.

+1

Basically a hair splitter, although an easy one to make - because we presumably ref the defense...in our primary - can't understand why Boeheim lost his lid over this one.

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

This has been a constant pet peeve of mine in NCAAM. A few years ago they hammered into our heads in NCAAW that as the L we shouldn't normally be primary on calls across the lane because we'll get them wrong more than 50% of the time.

Even if the L in this play managed to call it correctly I'd have to question where he'd been looking when the play started if he was able to see the defender clearly.

I couldn't agree more with this. The C has a much, much better look at his side of the paint.

[JRutledge]

I have no problem with the call. The right foot is there and he is mostly in front of the shooter. If I am going to error, it is going to be on a PC foul not a block. And if I have to slow it down to determine, then I am really happy with this call.

Peace

[Raymond]

The problem with the Lead making the call on this play is that he never closed down and pinched the paint. He's out of position, IMO.

And it is an RA play. B2's right heel was on the arc when A1 went airborne.