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

[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.

[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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

Who woulda thunk it?

Yes, Rocky, but don't call that if you want to work college ball!

This thread made me wonder if a couple of the guys here think going to the nurses office or a PrimaCare facility qualifies as attending a clinic.

[tjones1]

This play is addressed in 2012-13 NCAA Men's Basketball Video Bulletin - 3 (posted 11/27/12).

[IUgrad92]

So the NCAA Bulletin says that a defensive fouls should have been called, yet if you want to work college ball you better not call that. If that's not mixed signals I don't know what is......

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tjones1

This play is addressed in 2012-13 NCAA Men's Basketball Video Bulletin - 3 (posted 11/27/12).

Really?