Michigan v. Minnesota

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

The only time I see the arms down, there was no contact. By the time there was contact, the arms were up.

I do not think that lead had the angle to see how straight up nor not straight up they were.

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.

I don't disagree with you in general, but that one looks horrible.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't disagree with you in general, but that one looks horrible.

The other one I've seen is a no call accompanied by the arms being held straight up -- I've seen that a number of times at the D-1 level this year and I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rich

The other one I've seen is a no call accompanied by the arms being held straight up -- I've seen that a number of times at the D-1 level this year and I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

This signal has been used in the NBA and D-I for a couple of years I'd say. I also have no problem with this. Used in a simple, understated fashion, it lets everyone know that the official ruled verticality.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by APG

This signal has been used in the NBA and D-I for a couple of years I'd say. I also have no problem with this. Used in a simple, understated fashion, it lets everyone know that the official ruled verticality.

I'm on the fence with this one. I remember Welmer and others using both of the "straight up" and "not straight up" signals in years past in the B1G, and thinking it looked goofy, and that the non-call should've been selling the call, so to speak.

[APG]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I'm on the fence with this one. I remember Welmer and others using both of the "straight up" and "not straight up" signals in years past in the B1G, and thinking it looked goofy, and that the non-call should've been selling the call, so to speak.

I view it the same as the not closely guarded signal. Sure, one could make the case that not having a count means the player is not closely guarded, but the signal conveys that the official isn't counting not because he's not paying attention, but rather some element needed for the count is missing.

I view this signal the same way...the official didn't pass on the play because he wasn't paying attention...rather he saw the contact and judged the defender as going straight up and straight down. One also has to know when to use it so that he/she doesn't give the signal and have a partner come in with a whistle.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by APG

I view it the same as the not closely guarded signal. Sure, one could make the case that not having a count means the player is not closely guarded, but the signal conveys that the official isn't counting not because he's not paying attention, but rather some element needed for the count is missing.

I view this signal the same way...the official didn't pass on the play because he wasn't paying attention...rather he saw the contact and judged the defender as going straight up and straight down. One also has to know when to use it so that he/she doesn't give the signal and have a partner come in with a whistle.

Regardless of philosophy, I think your last comment is key, and has been stated basically verbatim in the NCAAW manual this year - that supplementary signals can sometimes be effective and useful, but that they need to be delivered at a delayed cadence.