Michigan v. Minnesota

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by APG

Examples of good no calls

What is the call after the elbow in the first play? Did they call a block on Blue 1 near the basket? L and C both have a foul. Not quite sure what that signal is that the L had.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Well if you want to play the semantics game then sure.

But it is a POE in this year's rules book and this is the language every official in my association received from our interpreter via our commissioner:

"Any elbow in movement that contacts an opponent above the shoulders must be ruled an intentional foul, at minimum. If the elbow contact is deemed excessive, savage, or violent, the contact may be ruled flagrant. Under no circumstances may officials rule such contact a player-control foul, since a player-control foul is, by definition, a common foul."

So if a coach ask me why I called an intentional foul on his player for elbow contact I am going to say "by rule it must be an intentional foul, at minimum....."

And that is exactly why some states have interpreted "movement" to really only mean certain types of movement. This is absolutely not an intentional foul (for F1) and should not be called as one. In fact, if I had anything, it might be illegal use of nose.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

What is the call after the elbow in the first play? Did they call a block on Blue 1 near the basket? L and C both have a foul. Not quite sure what that signal is that the L had.

The L was trying to say the defender wasn't vertical. His signal looked ridiculous as given, the right signal, if it had actually been the right call, would be illegal use of hands. But he was in a horrible position to determine that anyway and got it wrong IMO. The defender may well have committed a block and that may be what the C had but given that the L was eager to make a call with a non-existant signal and the C held, we'll never know.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is exactly why some states have interpreted "movement" to really only mean certain types of movement.

As a Washingtonian I approve this message...

[APG]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

What is the call after the elbow in the first play? Did they call a block on Blue 1 near the basket? L and C both have a foul. Not quite sure what that signal is that the L had.

He called a foul for the defender not being vertical. Now what he used was not an approved signal, but I don't have a real big problem with the signal as it more aptly described what he called the defender for.

[JugglingReferee]

No call, no call, and it could have been a travel.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by APG

He called a foul for the defender not being vertical. Now what he used was not an approved signal, but I don't have a real big problem with the signal as it more aptly described what he called the defender for.

That is what I thought but wasn't 100% sure. I don't think the defender did anything wrong especially on the initial contact. I think I would have had a no call or PC for displacing the defender. I don't do much 3 man but in this case, it should have been C's call, right?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ODog

Why did the person who asked you want Plays 2 and 3 posted?

If you watched the game live or the broadcast, the second play was seen as a foul by the commentators and when the replay was shown or angle on the end line was shown, then they backed off. But again you heard the, "There was a lot of contact on that play right?" And that play lead to an easy basket on the other end as well.

The third play it was talked about as a travel. Now as officials we should know these things already, but I have seen officials call that play a travel.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The L was trying to say the defender wasn't vertical. His signal looked ridiculous as given, the right signal, if it had actually been the right call, would be illegal use of hands. But he was in a horrible position to determine that anyway and got it wrong IMO. The defender may well have committed a block and that may be what the C had but given that the L was eager to make a call with a non-existant signal and the C held, we'll never know.

No problem with the L making the call. Look at where the players were at the time of the foul -- at the top of the restricted area circle -- if the L can't get a proper angle and make this call he shouldn't be out there. It's a good second whistle from the C, but in the games I work we're giving that to the L that deep in the paint all day long.

And it's clearly a foul -- the arms are down, he commits the foul, and then he gets the arms vertical -- they may have ended up that way, but they weren't that way when he fouled the player.

I also have no problem with the signal, but I've always been a proponent of getting away from the five or six signals in the chart and using more descriptive signals, so of course I would say that.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rich

I also have no problem with the signal, but I've always been a proponent of getting away from the five or six signals in the chart and using more descriptive signals, so of course I would say that.

Likewise...and I've been known to use the "hit to the head" or tripping signal when the occasion calls for it. 100 times more descriptive signals then "illegal use of arms" or a "blocking" or "pushing" signal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

No problem with the L making the call. Look at where the players were at the time of the foul -- at the top of the restricted area circle -- if the L can't get a proper angle and make this call he shouldn't be out there. It's a good second whistle from the C, but in the games I work we're giving that to the L that deep in the paint all day long.

And it's clearly a foul -- the arms are down, he commits the foul, and then he gets the arms vertical -- they may have ended up that way, but they weren't that way when he fouled the player.

I also have no problem with the signal, but I've always been a proponent of getting away from the five or six signals in the chart and using more descriptive signals, so of course I would say that.

I am not a fan of that signal, but I absolutely know why he called that foul. I would love it when the NF gets off their high horse or my state would stop insisting only the signals listed should be used. There are other ways to describe fouls and it tells everyone why you actually made the call, not some signal that tells us nothing.

I also do not have a problem with the call from the L here either. It was a secondary player and it was in the lane.

Peace

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by APG

Likewise...and I've been known to use the "hit to the head" or tripping signal when the occasion calls for it. 100 times more descriptive signals then "illegal use of arms" or a "blocking" or "pushing" signal.

+1
And I'm glad they were finally added to the NCAA manuals. They need to get it in the HS books now. Somebody call somebody.

[bob jenkins]

I've always found this funny. We've been pounded "only use the signals in the book. Unauthorized signals are not to be used."

Then, one year, "we've added new signals because you've been using them and they work."

But, "only use the new approved signals". Well, how will we know if other new signals might also be more appropriate if we don't use them?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Then, one year, "we've added new signals because you've been using them and they work."

+1 And what would be an example of a signal "not working"?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

+1 And what would be an example of a signal "not working"?

Well, I can think of a potential signal for "hitting the ball with a fist" that might not be appropriate.