LMAO....good one Camron

Agree with this assessment. Luckily my 2 most vocal college supervisors are big proponents of the C getting FTLE and get very irritated when C's start creeping back towards the division line.

I do too. I tend to start at the FTLE and then step even lower most of the time. If I wanted to be a T, I'd work 2-person *all the time*.

Not necessarily. There's stuff we do I haven't been thrilled with at times - giong tableside on foul calls, which we did before NCAAM, comes to mind - but having the C as primary on a play like this makes sense to me.

The C in an NCAAW game would've maneuvered themselves to the FTLE to make sure they could see it...an issue I see was brought up in some of the previous posts. :p

The C in a HS game should've done the same thing. The C in an NCAAM game should've done the same thing. You can't pick one thing and say that it's a reflection of NCAAM teaching.

Not so much teaching as it is habits. If you don't think you need to look at something there's a chance you won't move to a spot where you could see it.

Habits by older officials working NCAA-M. You'll see the younger officials getting FTLE.

This was a difficult game to referee. Self got a Tech 2 minutes in (hopefully the video will post below).

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0bW-Oq5hsKc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

1. We cannot have a no-call on the crash at the end of the game. IMO, this was a charge and should have sealed the deal for ISU. To compound matters, there is an at best marginal foul call on the player who was steamrolled sending KU to the line to tie the game.

2. There should have been a 5th foul on Withey. He was trying to foul at the end of the game and is even over by the bench waiting to be replaced. Instead, the foul is given to a player who did not touch the offensive player.

3. On the BI in the second half, one of the officials looks at the bigscreen during the conference. There is no way to know if they had time to see the play and whether it played into the decision or not.

Overall, a very disappointing outcome for the game of basketball.

I think O'Neill looked up because someone told him to look at the big screen -- he very quickly looked away when he realized it was a replay. Not sure why he looked in the first place, but I do not think he used it. Could be he looked up out of reflex when someone told him to -- who knows?

Self had it coming, IMO.

The reason NCAA-M want the Lead taking block/charge plays in the paint, is because it is the help-side/secondary defender who is involved in the contact! How can the Center (or Trail, for that matter), see past the defender who has been beaten, see thru the offensive player w/ the ball (who is moving AWAY from C or T), and then find the secondary defender to determined if LGP or the RA is in play? The ONLY PERSON able to accurately officiate the secondary defender is the L......

This is a case of the Lead missing an obvious PC, and THEN calling a foul that wasn't there (whether you factor in time/score or not).

To be honest, it's the delayed holding foul called on the defender that makes the missed PC foul REEEEAAAALLLLLY bad!

That's a nice philosophy, but to say it is an absolute that the L makes this call is to set up a situation exactly like what happened in this game.

The initial defender is between the L and the ball handler, so there really isn't anyway the L can make this call. The person with the best opportunity to see the contact on this play is the C, and he doesn't do anything to put himself in position to get it...obviously just guessing here, but I would bet that the C didn't work for an angle because he thought that the L would get it.

Had the L closed down/pinched, then maybe he would have gotten it...but the C should never just stand there and let the play go thinking the L will get it.

It's not an absolute. It's just the L's primary. The C can (and should) have a whistle if there is sufficient contact and no whistle from the L.

Yes. I know...I was simply responding to the capitalized/emphasized portion of a previous post.

Your opinion is wrong. NCAAM have also been instructed heavily over the years that a player can absorb contact/protect themselves. We have also been instructed to watch for to & through contact. This is clearly one player going through another....I believe the terminology is RTFO!

The L was responsible for the secondary defender, but the C was responsible for the drive and should have stayed with the drive through the crash (as part of any crash situation - pregame). It is not over for the C just because the play was in the lane and it involved a secondary defender.

The T would have been responsible for BI/GT as part of the instruction coming down from the NBA. The T had a better look (geometry).

This is an ICNC every time.

I think you're misreading what Nevada's saying. He specifically stated that his opinion was what he was thinking the official judged - not that it is Nevada's opinion that it was the correct judgment by the official.

Unless you are the "Smith" referenced in the post and play. If that's the case, you have every right to assert that Nevada's opinion of what he's guessing was going through the official's mind at that point is incorrect. Otherwise, I think there's a misunderstanding happening here.