Clip(s): Kansas v. Iowa State

[JetMetFan]

Is it just me or does it look like the C follows the flight of the ball as the contact is taking place?

Also, watching the C he follows the play slightly below the FT line then two players get in his way...and he never moves to get a better angle. Add no close down by the L, no call to save the day from the T then the foul on the ISU player and this is a complete FUBAR.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Is it just me or does it look like the C follows the flight of the ball as the contact is taking place?

Well someone must as BI or GT could occur and the Trail is nowhere to be found.

PS There was an offensive BI call earlier in the game too. It seemed that one of the officials peeked at the video replay on the big screen above center court while they huddled to discuss it. Footage of this would be awesome.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Well someone must as BI or GT could occur and the Trail is nowhere to be found.

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

[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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Well someone must as BI or GT could occur and the Trail is nowhere to be found.

You don't watch that and ignore contact in your primary.

The T was in the frontcourt when the shot was taken. Granted, he never made it to the 28-foot mark but he was across the division line. If there's a BI or GT which is that glaring, that's his headache.

[tmagan]

Well at least it took away any attention from the Bo Boroski controversy du jour in the Villanova/Seton Hall game, calling a technical on 'Nova after a Seton Hall player flopped, then the ESPNU camera caught the Hall player laughing after committing the flop. Earlier last week, Boroski and a St. Louis announcer got into it after a foul call.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

You don't watch that and ignore contact in your primary.

The T was in the frontcourt when the shot was taken. Granted, he never made it to the 28-foot mark but he was across the division line. If there's a BI or GT which is that glaring, that's his headache.

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Something that makes me grind my teeth since that's NCAAM instruction. In NCAAW that's the C's primary with the L as secondary. Regardless, I don't think you focus on BI/GT with bodies falling all over the place. I also don't think the C had "the T isn't anywhere to be found" in his mind when the play took place. In the grand tradition of "trust your partners," you as the C have to figure the T will catch anything above the rim.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Something that makes me grind my teeth since that's NCAAM instruction. In NCAAW that's the C's primary with the L as secondary. Regardless, I don't think you focus on BI/GT with bodies falling all over the place. I also don't think the C had "the T isn't anywhere to be found" in his mind when the play took place. In the grand tradition of "trust your partners," you as the C have to figure the T will catch anything above the rim.

Take a poll. I like the NCAAM instruction -- I want the L taking anything in the lane. The fact that they missed this doesn't make it a bad way of doing it.

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by Rich

Take a poll. I like the NCAAM instruction -- I want the L taking anything in the lane. The fact that they missed this doesn't make it a bad way of doing it.

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.

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

If the C didn't have a good look, he should have position adjusted to get a look. I didn't see him move at all to try and get a better angle, even after the crash happened...

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.

[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*.

[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.