Louisville @ ND, Rich's video request #1
 

Sorry. Getting to these as fast as I can what with work, games and...what's that thing? Oh yeah, sleep getting in the way :)

6:54 second half. Fifth foul on ND player

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nCF50-Rl710?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What a nut cutter! Did R5 go straight up and W45 back up into him? Or was R5 on W45 before he backed up?

Usually you'd see this go the other way...

That's a call I would make. W45 backed into airborne R5. It was inadvertent but most fouls are. I err in favor of protecting airborne players.

I think this is the correct call.

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

The real foul is on Gold #22 who made no attempt to block out #5. That would have cleaned up the whole mess.

Tough play...

I think The Beatles wrote a song about this play.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kYrKVopaZW...+Submarine.gif

I'm with Johnny on this one!

I also think this would have been the better call although I think the official got it right if you had to choose between R5 and W45.

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.

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

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

Louisville, dude, Louisville.

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.

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.