Clip(s): Kansas v. Iowa State

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The only players that were in a position to have committed those infractions were laying on the floor.

LMAO....good one Camron

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

...
The C was set up too high anyways from his "home" position... Something I see all too often from guys working NCAAM in the C position. I feel that if he had set up at the FTLE, there would have been a much better angle for the C to have a whistle on this play.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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*.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rich

I would expect all NCAAW officials to like their way of calling it.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

[Tio]

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



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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tio

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



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.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

I'm with JetMet on this one... However, I understand why NCAAM wants the L to have everything in the paint with there being more of an opportunity for above the rim play. On the women's side, there isn't hardly any play above the rim, so the C has more of an opportunity to referee their primary... including half of the lane.

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!

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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......

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.

[cmb]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by cmb

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.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Never said that one should. However, per current NCAA instruction, this play is the Lead's primary call to make. Therefore, it is reasonable for the C to take a look at the flight of the ball. Of course, he still has secondary responsibility for the crash should the Lead not have it.

Also Whitehead crossed the division line and put the flaps down. I wouldn't want to rely on someone in that position to make a BI or GT call. He certainly didn't make a block/charge call to bail out the crew.

My opinion on this whole play is that Smith observed the defender thrust his upper body backwards prior to the offensive player arriving and thus felt that there wasn't sufficient contact for a charge. The C likely didn't have a good look due to other players being in the way and thus left the play to Lead. The T is a long way away and probably thought that while it looked ugly, he was going to trust his two partners who were down there and must have good reasons for not blowing a whistle.

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.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

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.