Louisville @ ND, Rich's video request #1

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Johnny Ringo

I like the call. However, could you have called RED #44 with a push?

Especially with the positioning and look the lead has on the play. There's definitely a forearm across the chest of the ND player, but can't really tell if it was enough to cause that much displacement. Again, the official has the perfect look, gotta trust it.

[Rich]

I liked the call, personally, but I can see why everyone (that is the other team and the announcers) wouldn't like it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BLydic

Especially with the positioning and look the lead has on the play. There's definitely a forearm across the chest of the ND player, but can't really tell if it was enough to cause that much displacement. Again, the official has the perfect look, gotta trust it.

If you're going to look at that, you also need to look at the reverse...what that ND player (#45) was doing as well. I wouldn't exactly call him the victim in that situation with #44. He was behind #44 when the ball was up on the rim and used his arms to reverse the positions....all before the forearm from #44. Not really enough for a foul in my book but no less than was #45 did either.

[OKREF]

Louisville 44 pushes Notre dame 45 back into Louisville 21. Don't know the lead didn't see that shove.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Wisconsin 44 pushes Notre dame 45 back into Wisconsin 21. Don't know the lead didn't see that shove.

Louisville, dude, Louisville.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

Louisville, dude, Louisville.

My bad, my bad.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If you're going to look at that, you also need to look at the reverse...what that ND player (#45) was doing as well. I wouldn't exactly call him the victim in that situation with #44. He was behind #44 when the ball was up on the rim and used his arms to reverse the positions....all before the forearm from #44. Not really enough for a foul in my book but no less than was #45 did either.

I agree, probably wasn't clear that I liked the call made in the video and was only responding to a specific address of the ND player getting pushed. While there may be a push, forearm in the chest, there's no doubt a whistle was needed on #45 for the undercut IMO.

Again, any questioning of the call would be highly difficult with the look the lead had on the play.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BLydic

I agree, probably wasn't clear that I liked the call made in the video and was only responding to a specific address of the ND player getting pushed. While there may be a push, forearm in the chest, there's no doubt a whistle was needed on #45 for the undercut IMO.

Again, any questioning of the call would be highly difficult with the look the lead had on the play.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[canuckrefguy]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

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

[#olderthanilook]

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.

[Adam]

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.