Michigan v. Minnesota

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.