My bad, my bad.:eek:

The shove by 44 caused the undercut. In normal play I wouldn't get that, however, in this play you can't penalize 45 for getting shoved into 21's path.

I'm not seeing that. I see 45 jumping back on his own with 44's push being incidental to him going in that direction.

I admit at first I did not like this call but watching it a few more times and I agree with it.

When I first saw it I thought that also. The shot from under the basket changed my mind. I think that the shove is enough to put 45 into the path. However, I'm not judging the guy. That's a tough call.

Man, talk about physicality and big bodies in the paint. A tough, tough series of events to officiate. I can see why these guys make the big bucks. Having said that, I'm going to dissent here.

If I were ND's coach, I'd be asking precisely what #45 did wrong on this play.

First, he can't even see LOU5, who comes flying in - so not sure how you can make the call that ND45 undercuts him.

Second, if ND45 moves backwards, it's a combination of moving slightly backwards to try and get the rebound - and being helped by LOU44 tangling up with him and/or pushing him backwards with a forearm.

You basically have ND45 get tangled up with two red bodies on this play - neither of which is his fault, IMO.

Even at this level, I say call the obvious. Foul on Louisville #5.

Whatever the case, I'm just glad I didn't have to clean that mess up. Sheesh :eek:

I agree....44's arm, while there, isn't what caused the undercut. 45 did that on his own.

Solid call. It was bang bang, but the offensive rebounder collected the rebound w/o contacting the defender, who ended up backing into him.

Line 'em up. Shooting 2.

We went over video like this at the beginning of our season. Instruction was to get the inside guy when he backs out like this. Too many players think inside position means being able to back through the opponent.

What does that have to do with anything as it pertains to any call for that matter?

Not necessarily saying it's the determining factor.

My observations were strictly of the 'call the obvious' variety.

I had a call like this earlier in the eyear. A1 is inside of B1, however it is a long rebound, both jump up and A1 jumps backwards and gets under B1 as he is coming down. A1 literally cuts B1 as he is coming down. I called it on A1 and A coach just couldn't understand why it was on his player, since he had inside position. Tried to explain, but he never got it.