Clip(s): Kansas v. Iowa State
 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/9UJzHPs3CYM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He got RTFO. How in the heck is that a no call?

Peace

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.

Thanks!

And the foul by Withey which was charged to Young, please.

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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks JRUT! I'm gonna use it!!
 

Coach: "Ref, how is that a charge?"

Me: "Coach, He got RTFO!" :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious.

Lost Whistle

Look at this play AGAIN. It's the SECONDARY defender who takes the contact. This is the PERFECT example of why the LEAD has to officiate this play.

Anybody could have had a whistle. Somebody should of had a whistle. Nobody had a whistle. Everybody got downgraded.

Disagree completely that there "isn't anyway the L can make this call" or that the C has best opportunity to see contact on this play. The L should have already been refereeing the secondary defender and while the initial defender is there, the L still has a great look at the play.

The C, on the other hand has the ball handler, initial defender, and two other players between him and the contact. Thus he is not likely at all to be able to pick up whether or not the secondary defender has LGP. So to me this play is another example that supports the NCAAM philosophy of having the L having this in their primary.

And as for your guess that the C didn't work for a better angle because he felt the L would get it, that comes across as a convenient way to criticize a philosophy you don't necessarily agree with. I'd bet that the C didnt work to get a better angle because he got stuck watching the drive to the basket and then stayed high because it was so quick.

Either way someone should have had a whistle on this play and the positioning of all three officials, especially the L and C has room for criticism. And with the positions they were ultimately in, the L had the best look and should have had a relatively easy PC. He then compounds it with a marginal foul call on the defender.

Disagree all you want to...the L did not move to a position where he could see that play, so there is no way he could make that call. That's what I said before, it's what I am saying now. Should he have moved-yes. Already said that, too. No way in the world the C should have stopped referring that play, and no way in the world the C should have stopped moving to get an angle on that play. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

And I am not criticizing the NCAAM philosophy here, just criticizing an earlier statement that the L is the "ONLY ONE" who can have a whistle on this play.

Pretty clear what I am disagreeing with as stated in my earlier post. You said there is no way for the L to make this call because the initial defender was between him and the ball handler. I disagree with that- the L still had a great look at the play. And I agree that the L should have closed down more but disagree that even with the position he had that there is "no way" he can make the call. He could and should have.

I also disagree with your statement that the person with the best opportunity to see the contact on this play is the C for the reasons stated in my earlier post. So not sure why it's hard to understand what I'm disagreeing with.

And it's my mistake if I made the assumption that you disagree with the philosophy of the L having the primary on this. But nobody has said that the L is the only one that can have a whistle here. I believe what twocents said is the the L is the only one that can accurately officiate the secondary defender. Big difference there.

The biggest problem is not if the NCAAM or NCAAW coverage is better (I like NCAAW ;)) it's that NOT ONE of the three was in position to referee this play. L should've pinched, C should have at least been FTLE (probably another step or two down since this play originated from his primary I believe he should have stayed with it) and T should have been at least at the 28ft line and could have came with a strong whistle and taking a few steps toward the basket-he actually might have had the best angle. Not one of them was in position to referee anything that happened with less than 10 seconds on the clock in a close ball game. To me that is the biggest issue.

DALLAS (AP) The Big 12 says officiating errors were made at the end of regulation before No. 6 Kansas outlasted Iowa State in overtime on Monday night.

The league said Tuesday that "appropriate measures will be taken" against the two officials involved, including an adjustment of "the number of future assignments."

The Big 12 did not identify the officials or the plays in question.

Kansas's Elijah Johnson drove into the lane and got tangled up with Iowa State's Georges Niang with less than 10 seconds left. No foul was called, and Niang was then whistled for fouling Johnson on the floor. Johnson sank two free throws to force OT with 4.9 seconds left.

Kansas won the game 108-96.
STATS Hosted Solution | News Story - Big 12 admits officiating errors in Kansas win - NCAA Basketball - Basketball

Ok, I get it. I said the L couldn't have a good enough look at the play to make the call, and that he should have pinched to get a look. And I said the C should have kept moving to get an angle on the play. And you disagreed with those things. Ok.

Interesting that the article posted only says that two of the officials will be disciplined...wonder why the third is not included in that?

Putting aside the issue of who should have made that call, what about the fact that the refs saw the play, but froze on it, knowing that there was only 10 seconds left. It takes guts to make that call (although not much since it appeared to be a no-brainer).

I still think the biggest travesty was the terrible call a few seconds later with the call on the kid who had the Kansas player lying on him after getting steamrolled! There was no reason for that call, especially since the pass was made out anyways.

One guy worked a Final Four several times and a National Championship game on top of that. Another guy I am almost certain he did as well and worked the NCAA Tournament several times. I do not think courage was part of this call being made or not. Maybe someone pass on it not seeing the entire play and looking for someone else to call it, that is possible. But the lead does not have the background the others do and he passed on the call and according to the NCAA he is the guy to get that call. But I think that has little to do with this situation. I think it was just a play that either was a surprise to those involved or passed on because they felt it should not be called for whatever reason. But I would not want to accuse anyone of not having the courage considering they all have been on national TV multiple times over the years and in much bigger settings.

Peace

Not sure if you are intentionally trying to twist things around or what. As I stated more than once I agree that the L should have pinched and that the C should have worked for a better angle. But they didnt.

So what I disagree with is your statements that there was no way the L could see the play or have a whistle given the position he was in AND I disagree with your statement that the C is the person with the best opportunity to see the contact on this play.

It is interesting that that the 3rd official was not included. Would have been nice had he come in and saved the crew but he's the least culpable of the three IMO.

+1

Peace

+1 The play needed a whistle no matter who had it. It was absolutely a crew saving call.

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?

He could introduce them to "Sam the Owl":)

I honestly don't think we are disagreeing very much at all.

I disagree with this statement. :)

I think it's clear where we disagree but it really doesnt matter so I'm moving on.

Will be interesting to see how O'Neill and Smith's schedules are affected going forward and I would love to have access to their post game and subsequent conversation(s) with Shaw.

Seems to me like they froze both physically and mentally and we'll never know why. We all have moments on the court we'd like to do over. This just happened to be on ESPN on a Monday night with a relatively light NCAAM schedule.

Aw well. I can only hope to one day have the opportunity to be in these guys position and have people on this forum making multiple page threads about my calls or no-calls.

Smart-a$$!:D

I really don't think it is a career killer for either of them. Will they lose a few Big 12 games this season? Yes...maybe the Big 12 tournament? I doubt that it will cost them a post-season berth if they had one. If it does, one of the other conferences they work for will pick them up.

And I would love to hear their post game thoughts and their breakdown of that play also. Maybe in a few years they will share at a camp or something.

Yeah I would think/hope that this one play is not going to impact either one beyond losing a couple of Big 12 games this year.

And I just watched the play again during halftime of the IU-Minnesota game. I think it boils down to positioning. Neither the L or C worked to get a good angle on the play and it cost them big time in terms of not having a needed whistle. Then Smith compounds it by putting the kid on the line with a very marginal call after passing on a collision.

But we all know things look different from different angles. I think the C has no idea about the LGP status of the secondary defender b/c he couldnt even see him and the L had a poor angle and guess he did not appreciate exactly how much the offense went through the defender.

They still made around $2500 for this game, that should feed the family for a day or two?

They probably made more than that based on tier level payment and one has a couple of kids working at the D1 level, so he is fine feeding his family. ;)

Peace

Go get 'em, Nikki! :D

Apart from this, I'm surprised as others are that only two crew memebrs are being disciplined. I would've thought the conference would've said all of them catch heat or none of them. The guy who was the T on that play was the new L on the Withey/Young foul call and had a whistle on it, though he wasn't the one who reported the foul. In any event, it seems all three had a role in this one during the final 30 seconds of regulation.

Big 12 comments on the calls in question

Peace

If you watched the UF/Tenn game last night you have seen great examples of officials working a "low" C instead of wandering off towards the 28' line.

I'm "sure" it's two getting discilined because even though T could have saved the crew it wasn't really his call. That is, he could have improved his evaluation by making the call, but doesn't get a poorer evaluation by not making it.

PC's don't get much easier than that one. What I don't get is why the L would pass on that much contact, and THEN be quick on the whistile to call the illegal contact on the ISU defender while they are on the floor. If the crew had just swallowed the whistle for the whole sequence it would probably be getting less pub than it is now.

I don't get people that work a high C. What's the benefit, really? FT line to FT line is only 64 feet and unlike when you're the T, there's no huge hurry to stay in front of the play.

+1

And, IF an official is going to work a "high C", it would be best to at least "step down" on plays that originate from the C's PCA.

Btw, I couldn't disagree more with the notion that the officials "blew the game" for ISU.

Agree here. Because if the L does rotate, I don't know whether or not they know it because they don't need to move at all.

Yes ISU had time to recover with a full 5 minutes left in that game. They did not do so very well. But I think that those two no-call, call helped KU go to overtime. If you call the charge, ISU wins the game. If you do not call the foul after players on on the floor, then you do not send them to the line. I think when you make a call it really has to be there and that was not there. And as someone said if they pass on the foul that put KU on the line, we are not even talking about this situation or game and the play is not making national news either. This is why you can have a great 31 minutes and 30seconds (or 39 minutes and 30 seconds) and no one remembers what you did in that time when you have big plays at the end of the game. We are not even talking about the foul that took place where the wrong player was given a foul a few minutes before these this drive and foul.

A good lesson to learn.

Peace

The final "pie in the face" on the whole night would've been if the KU player who should've fouled out had been the guy involved in the block/charge non-call. :eek:

I've interacted with the only person in the world that thinks this play should be a block (via YouTube on the page for the video). Mind is blown.

Must be a blind Kansas fan.

Gotta love his comment about not being a block if the defender had moved INTO the shooter instead of falling away from him!:eek:

We have a chucklehead fill-in radio host on a local afternoon sports radio show that was talking about this game today. He had a few callers spouting off about it too. All they could figure out was that it must have had something to do with Tim Donaghy and the NBA scandal. Of course they had no idea that they Lead didn't pinch, the Center was too high and didn't come in and get it when the Lead passed on it, etc....just that the officials are corrupt. :rolleyes:

Say the trail had made the call, what would the locker room conversation be like?

(By L and C) "We owe you copious amounts of beverages for that one. Thank you for saving our a$$es." That's about as big of a non-administrative crew-save call as it gets. I can't imagine anything other than gratitude and acceptance.

L and C would/should say, "thanks for coming to get that. I got stuck and didnt have a good look."

That's what it should be.

Too often though, it might be "stay the hell out of my area" or "I'm the big dog and I don't need you p***ing on my tree." Followed by "yeah, well if you would make the effing call I wouldn't have to do that."

I don't know (very well) any of the personalities involved in this scenario, so I can't say what would have happened.

With the game on the line, as a crew we MUST get the obvious fouls. Everyone sees this play and know it needs a whistle. If the lead freezes, then someone needs to call a foul, ideally the center but if the trail has to come get it then so be it. We need to remember that our duties are (in the order of importance): 1. To do what is right for the game 2. To do what is right for the crew 3. To do what is right for ourselves.

You can't worry about hurting someone's feelings on an obvious play the game needs.