Butler-Gonzaga finish

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drofficial

The guy who stole the ball in the final seconds last night committed two fouls. Of course, no "good official" would ever call either one in that case. But by rule both were fouls. He pushed the big kid out of the way (leaning on him AND extending the arm on the push)... Then he committed an offensive fould by dipping his shoulder and creating contact, which gave him a clear advantage by creating space.

It's too bad that basketball is not officiated by the rules. It would make the game much better.

I adamantly disagree with both statements. The pass on the inbounds was extremely bad and both players had their hands on each other as normally happens and because it was thrown way over the head of the offensive player, the defender was right there to make the play. Neither player fell down or could not move so you should not call a foul in that case.

In the play to the basket there was nothing to call either. The ball handler is driving to the basket with a retreating defender that has 4 fouls and trying not to foul or allow your opponent to win the game at the line with no answer when you have the lead. Once again, no one fell to the floor and the defender basically did their job to make the shot difficult.

And most of all did you watch the rest of the game? Where those things you say are fouls called at other parts of the game? That was a physical game and I bet they called more fouls than most call in a HS game (which I always find it ironic when HS officials complain about what is called at the college level).

Just because there is contact does not constitute a foul. And there is a little passage in the rulebook in both NF and NCAA book called "Incidental Contact" which makes it very clear that all contact is not a foul even in severe contact moments. And makes it clear there must be some advantage or disadvantage to some contact. So you want one rule used but forget the other rules I guess? And it is fine if there is a disagreement on plays and situations, but what makes a good official is someone that knows when to be consistent and call things they have always been calling, not call things they have not called in the first part of the game an then call them when the game is on the line. Also if that kind of contact is a foul early, you will really have a longer night or not have any plays at the basket or throw-ins without a foul if those two items are fouls, "by the rules."

These two plays are classic examples of incidental contact IMO and never stood out to me as fouls. Were there other plays in the game I could quibble with? Of course I could, but I do that in my own games. And many of the calls they made IMO were there and obvious. Even many of the calls that crew did not make I mostly agreed with.

Peace

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I adamantly disagree with both statements. The pass on the inbounds was extremely bad and both players had their hands on each other as normally happens and because it was thrown way over the head of the offensive player, the defender was right there to make the play. Neither player fell down or could not move so you should not call a foul in that case.

In the play to the basket there was nothing to call either. The ball handler is driving to the basket with a retreating defender that has 4 fouls and trying not to foul or allow your opponent to win the game at the line with no answer when you have the lead. Once again, no one fell to the floor and the defender basically did their job to make the shot difficult.

And most of all did you watch the rest of the game? Where those things you say are fouls called at other parts of the game? That was a physical game and I bet they called more fouls than most call in a HS game (which I always find it ironic when HS officials complain about what is called at the college level).

Just because there is contact does not constitute a foul. And there is a little passage in the rulebook in both NF and NCAA book called "Incidental Contact" which makes it very clear that all contact is not a foul even in severe contact moments. And makes it clear there must be some advantage or disadvantage to some contact. So you want one rule used but forget the other rules I guess? And it is fine if there is a disagreement on plays and situations, but what makes a good official is someone that knows when to be consistent and call things they have always been calling, not call things they have not called in the first part of the game an then call them when the game is on the line. Also if that kind of contact is a foul early, you will really have a longer night or not have any plays at the basket or throw-ins without a foul if those two items are fouls, "by the rules."

These two plays are classic examples of incidental contact IMO and never stood out to me as fouls. Were there other plays in the game I could quibble with? Of course I could, but I do that in my own games. And many of the calls they made IMO were there and obvious. Even many of the calls that crew did not make I mostly agreed with.

Peace

Agreed. Inbounds pass was terrible, thrown up for grabs so that anyone could make a play on it.

ON the drive, just incidental contact, and a retreating defender.

The most offensive part....Dickie V...."are you serious? are you serious?"

[drofficial]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

These two plays are classic examples of incidental contact IMO and never stood out to me as fouls.

Peace

My point exactly: When a defender leans and leans, and then clearly pushes with an extended arm, we now call that "incidental contact" simply because the offended player does not fall to the floor. And we wonder why we have trouble with flopping.

When we have bodies on the floor, we have to call something. But if we have an obvious push and the player does not fall down, it's incidental contact. Think of the foolishness of that philosophy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drofficial

My point exactly: When a defender leans and leans, and then clearly pushes with an extended arm, we now call that "incidental contact" simply because the offended player does not fall to the floor. And we wonder why we have trouble with flopping.

When we have bodies on the floor, we have to call something. But if we have an obvious push and the player does not fall down, it's incidental contact. Think of the foolishness of that philosophy.

It is incidental contact because it did not change the actions of the player. The defender was still able to defend the play with a hand in the face and air. Also I never get the "dipped his shoulder" claim anyway. A player that is running let alone dribbling is going to be leaning forward if they are moving with any speed or aggressiveness. He did not all of a sudden lean forward at the time of contact and all of a sudden create space.

I also disagree with the "we must have a foul" because bodies are on the floor. We must know how they got there, but bodies on the floor might mean someone fell or no one did anything illegal that resulted in such action. Now maybe you are having a hard time understanding that concept, but I tell people all the time that I am not calling a foul unless someone does something illegal.

Also it also is annoying when people try to stand on the rulebook as a moral way to condemn others that do not do what they do. This is a judgment issue more than anything. You might call this a foul and I might not, it does not mean someone is not applying the rules. I think this would not be a good play to call fouls and certainly not if other situations have not been made like this. And I am not sure I would love these fouls if these took place in the first minute of the game. The throw-in was a bad pass that did not give his teammate a chance to make the play and gift wrapped the ball for the defender. The play to the basket happens often and if that is a foul we would be calling fouls every play at the basket. There is going to be contact if unless the defenders allow them to just shoot.

Peace

[jeschmit]

I'm in JRut's corner on this on all accounts. TI pass was horrendous, and there was nothing on the drive for the game-winning bucket.

The coolest part for me is that I remember reffing Roosevelt Jones when he was in HS last year! Its always cool to see things like that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

The coolest part for me is that I remember reffing Roosevelt Jones when he was in HS last year! Its always cool to see things like that.

I do too. I believe he went to O'Fallon High School and two former partners of mine worked that school at the Pekin Sectional against Normal Community High School. I believe Jones was a Junior at the time. I did not watch him and think this is where he would be in his career. It is great he is doing well, but that is Illinois basketball for you too.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do too. I believe he went to O'Fallon High School and two former partners of mine worked that school at the Pekin Sectional against Normal Community High School. I believe Jones was a Junior at the time. I did not watch him and think this is where he would be in his career. It is great he is doing well, but that is Illinois basketball for you too.

Peace

I've followed a few players through their big-time college and NBA careers.

One that sticks in my mind (because it was a game I worked when Chris Duhon was a freshman or sophomore in HS) -- it was the year I lived in (and plotted my escape from) Slidell, LA. The game was something like 93-87 and we worked it 2-man. Never ran so hard on a court before or since.

Hard to believe that was 15+ years ago now.

[Adam]

You are certainly free to disagree with their judgment with regard to what contact is incidental, but claiming they aren't calling it by the rules because you disagree is nothing more than hubris.

[SAJ]

Appears on the inbound pass the offensive player initially "posted up" the defense expecting the high pass, then made two quick steps likely attempting to make space for a bounce pass. Then the high pass went to where he was and he was out of position. It doesn't appear the contact by the defender would have caused that much movement, so most if not all was on the offense.

[Thumper68]

I have agree with Jrut and icallfouls on this one. I don't have a foul on either play. I did watch the whole game and calls were consistent IMO.

[Rich]

I only saw the end. A foul on either the inbounds pass or the drive never once entered my mind and wouldn't have ever entered my mind if I hadn't seen this thread today.

These are not fouls at the college level or high school level or any other level. Contact is not a foul.

[APG]

The only thing that I "might" even consider entertaining is the contact during the throw-in. But that's nothing.

The 2nd part? Not even close to an offensive foul (and I'm being diplomatic in saying that). I don't know what in the heck you're talking about when you say the dribbler somehow "dipped his shoulder" (and this is a term I hate hearing from officials...it's in the same vein as claiming a defender that blocks a shot got the player "with the body."). That's not a foul in the NBA, NCAA, high school, middle school, elementary school school, etc.

Also, no game would be "better" if it was called 100 percent by the book...no sport is. But that doesn't even apply on this play because all the contact seen in this play is incidental contact, which is in the rule book.

Honestly, I'd expect such a bad call to be suggested and justified by a fan of the losing team.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Rich

I only saw the end. A foul on either the inbounds pass or the drive never once entered my mind and wouldn't have ever entered my mind if I hadn't seen this thread today.

These are not fouls at the college level or high school level or any other level. Contact is not a foul.

+1

But the complaining is much more "entertaining" than praising the officials for getting the travel call on the inbounds just prior to that.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

+1

But the complaining is much more "entertaining" than praising the officials for getting the travel call on the inbounds just prior to that.

Travel call on the inbounds?

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by drofficial

My point exactly: When a defender leans and leans, and then clearly pushes with an extended arm, we now call that "incidental contact" simply because the offended player does not fall to the floor. And we wonder why we have trouble with flopping.

When we have bodies on the floor, we have to call something. But if we have an obvious push and the player does not fall down, it's incidental contact. Think of the foolishness of that philosophy.

When I viewed the clip, I was expecting something big. I'm still looking.

You are out to lunch on this one.