Purdue/Villanova PC upgraded to Flagrant 1 - APG video request

[canuckrefguy]

deecee's right, to a certain extent.

I've seen officials get nailed by evaluators for calling defensive fouls in these situations.

Let's say the elbow never gets thrown, and the official calls a foul on #24 - how many people would be here saying he was too quick on the whistle?

BTW - good offensive call, but not sure that qualifies as "flagrant". Definitely some embellishment by the defender, though.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

From the college camps Ive gone to and made these calls and been told the exact same thing. Being reamed out for "making a 50/50 call that doesn't matter a lick in middle school and in college has way more riding on it" ya. Go ahead make this call. Even I, with all my high school experience, think is borderline pushing it will tell you it won't win you squat.

After reading a handful of your posts from the past several days I was thinking that you had finally started to mature, but clearly that isn't the case. You are still popping off like a 16 year-old.
You are ticked because you tried to tell someone how it is at a level that you've never worked and someone else called you on that. In the future, stick to giving advice about what you know.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

After reading a handful of your posts from the past several days I was thinking that you had finally started to mature, but clearly that isn't the case. You are still popping off like a 16 year-old.
You are ticked because you tried to tell someone how it is at a level that you've never worked and someone else called you on that. In the future, stick to giving advice about what you know.

Nevada, I could care less about what you think. Tell that to the D1 evaluators that chewed me out over such 50/50 calls. Im not arguing the one that was called. I was arguing the the borderline not so offensive call in the beginning of the trap.

When you get an evaluator tell you in these situations the last thing they want to do is rest their hat on a 50/50 call especially when they are just starting off. Well there is reality, and there is wishful thinking. In the future, stick to giving advice about your gummy bears and gum drops.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Seriously??

Yes....seriously. IF you think that a hand check foul is warranted (85ft from the basket on a stationary ball handler who is making no attempt to get thru/out of a trap!), you won't be working too many college games (whether D1 or otherwise).

The ONLY official that could see that call is the Center official - the one who has the same view as the TV camera. IF you make that call as the Center, you won't be working too many college games (whether D1 or otherwise).

No matter what position you're in, the second defender - #4 - didn't commit a foul in any way, shape, or form. IF you make that call, you won't.....never mind - you know the drill.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Yes....seriously. IF you think that a hand check foul is warranted (85ft from the basket on a stationary ball handler who is making no attempt to get thru/out of a trap!), you won't be working too many college games (whether D1 or otherwise).

The ONLY official that could see that call is the Center official - the one who has the same view as the TV camera. IF you make that call as the Center, you won't be working too many college games (whether D1 or otherwise).

No matter what position you're in, the second defender - #4 - didn't commit a foul in any way, shape, or form. IF you make that call, you won't.....never mind - you know the drill.

Another poster who feels compelled to tell people this. Sigh.
Do you know what level of play rockyroad has worked?
I don't think that he needs you to tell him what calls are acceptable.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Another poster who feels compelled to tell people this. Sigh.
Do you know what level of play rockyroad has worked?
I don't think that he needs you to tell him what calls are acceptable.

Don't you love it?

Someone goes to a few camps and suddenly they know what should be called at any and every level!

[JRutledge]

Handchecking? Really?

I do not have anything but a FF1 for the offensive player. No RSBQ was affected by the contact IMO. And I have been to camps and worked college games. That to me is just part of basketball in a trap. If anything maybe you could suggest that you could call a foul on the arms early, but that would be a stretch IMO too. And I feel that way whether it is high school, college or middle school game other than the FF1 classification of course.

Peace

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Don't you love it?

Someone goes to a few camps and suddenly they know what should be called at any and every level!

My college schedule only allows me to attend camps as a clinician.....

I wish you a season of safe travels, good health, and correct calls.....

[Adam]

I didn't see any defensive fouls that I'd call, but that doesn't give me the right to make assumptions of those who did. I'm more inclined, in fact, to take a second look at this given the disagreement here and what I know about those who disagree with me.

[IUgrad92]

All I know is that as soon as W21 catches the ball he had multiple (2-4) hands in constant contact with him. How do we expect offensive players to react in this scenario with that being said? Are we not allowing a potential escalation of frustration by the offensive player when these defensive players hands are hitting, pushing, poking at/on the offensive player and is deemed acceptable play? And then we penalize the offensive player.... Something doesn't make sense here.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

All I know is that as soon as W21 catches the ball he had multiple (2-4) hands in constant contact with him. How do we expect offensive players to react in this scenario with that being said? Are we not allowing a potential escalation of frustration by the offensive player when these defensive players hands are hitting, pushing, poking at/on the offensive player and is deemed acceptable play? And then we penalize the offensive player.... Something doesn't make sense here.

I have to say, I think this is a good example of an area that officials as a group do not handle well.

Look at the video again and tell me there isn't illegal contact by the defenders on the guy with the ball. I'm not saying you bail out the offense with a foul for brushing up against them, but #24 in particular, clearly hacks the white player at the beginning of the trap, and then again a few seconds later. Both defenders also clearly leave their cylinder and initiate contact (body or hands) at least once.

We are making it so that one side of a competitive situation CLEARLY has an advantage from the officials. We allow aggressive chest bumping and hands contact from the defender, but do not allow the offensive player to pivot or rotate his body in an attempt to clear space or facilitate a pass. And to make matters worse, we're now "extra" penalizing the offensive player if they initiate contact by declaring it flagrant.

If you're the white coach in this situation, are you not asking the officials why the blue team was allowed to hack and grab at your guy?

(now in actuality, if you're the white coach you're ripping your guys for passing it into a coffin corner, but that's beside the point )

I think there needs to be more consistency on both sides of the ball in these situations - and evaluators need to more closely examine their tendency to penalize a referee that calls illegal defensive contact - that creates an advantage in the backcourt - by calling it a "ticky-tack" or "soft" foul.

I'm not saying you call a cheapie. But before the "elbow" on this play, there is at least one clear defensive foul. You can't allow one side to do whatever the heck they want, and make the other side stay virtually still.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

I have to say, I think this is a good example of an area that officials as a group do not handle well.

Look at the video again and tell me there isn't illegal contact by the defenders on the guy with the ball. I'm not saying you bail out the offense with a foul for brushing up against them, but #24 in particular, clearly hacks the white player at the beginning of the trap, and then again a few seconds later. Both defenders also clearly leave their cylinder and initiate contact (body or hands) at least once.

We are making it so that one side of a competitive situation CLEARLY has an advantage from the officials. We allow aggressive chest bumping and hands contact from the defender, but do not allow the offensive player to pivot or rotate his body in an attempt to clear space or facilitate a pass. And to make matters worse, we're now "extra" penalizing the offensive player if they initiate contact by declaring it flagrant.

If you're the white coach in this situation, are you not asking the officials why the blue team was allowed to hack and grab at your guy?

(now in actuality, if you're the white coach you're ripping your guys for passing it into a coffin corner, but that's beside the point )

I think there needs to be more consistency on both sides of the ball in these situations - and evaluators need to more closely examine their tendency to penalize a referee that calls illegal defensive contact - that creates an advantage in the backcourt - by calling it a "ticky-tack" or "soft" foul.

I'm not saying you call a cheapie. But before the "elbow" on this play, there is at least one clear defensive foul. You can't allow one side to do whatever the heck they want, and make the other side stay virtually still.

I disagree. The offensive player got himself into that mess and created just about all of the contact as he was flinging himself around trying to figure out what to do. Most of that supposed chest bumping was really caused by the movement of the offensive player, not the defenders moving into him. Even the hands were mostly due to the offensive player flailing around, not from the defenders doing anything.

[Raymond]

NCAA Video Bulletin #3:

1. There should have been a first foul on the defense
2. The Trail needed to stay back further to get a better angle of all the action in his primary
3. Once the PC foul was called and reviewed at the monitor the officials CORRECTLY upgraded it to a FF1.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

Watch the video... did the ELBOW make contact with the area above the shoulders? No, the triceps did... If I read the rule correctly, F1 fouls are in regards to ELBOWS contacting above the shoulders.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider the triceps part of the elbow...

You are reading the rule incorrectly. The rule does not say the contact has to come from the elbow itself:

Rule 10-1-Art. 13

Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:

a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul

b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36-7 is a flagrant 2 foul.

c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NCAA Video Bulletin #3:

1. There should have been a first foul on the defense
2. The Trail needed to stay back further to get a better angle of all the action in his primary
3. Once the PC foul was called and reviewed at the monitor the officials CORRECTLY upgraded it to a FF1.

Wow...imagine that. There should have been a foul on the defense first...hmmmm.

Who woulda thunk it?