Clip(s): Kansas v. Iowa State

[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.

[Rich]

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.

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

[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.

Looks like Tom and Bert will have a date or two open in the next few weeks and will be out of the Big 12 tournament. What else can Shaw do to them?

[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.

[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.