State Playoffs - Call or No Call
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Mn4Ut69L6vA#t=2m10s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A couple tough calls here.
I think I've got a charge initially and then even if I don't call anything there, I don't see how I could call the shooting foul.

That was in our 4A tournament.....I've got a PC based on the video. I had defender there first and she was backing up when the contact occurred. There needed to be a whistle on that play. Trail needed to put a whistle on that.

Not counting that play I do have a bump on the shot and I don't have a problem with shooting two....

I'd rather call the PC foul and let it end in a tie, than to call the 2nd foul. JMO.

I hope that the announcer was wrong and that the shot by #30 Red was ruled a 2, not a 3.
The collision along the sideline is a clear PC, but if I recall my chats with Camron correctly OR is 2-man for all games, so the Trail who is table side would be straight-lined and the Lead would have to come get this.
The Lead is then willing to call across and outside of the lane for marginal contact that results in game-winning FTs. I don't believe that the defender should have been penalized there.

I've got a PC

I've got a 3 man call there

I've got either a hold or a block (take your pick) on red 30 long before the PC collision. If not for that, the dribbler would have been able to turn to avoid the 2nd defender.

I thought that also, but after watching it a couple of times, doesn't look like a foul on 30 to me. It is close, I will give you that.

PC and a no call on the shot.

I think she was impeding the dribbler's movement from the E on Coliseum to about the L....leaning into her and restricting her freedom of movement with her arm.

I'm also a bit surprised that the dribbler stayed inbounds after the collision.

I also think that the camera angle really hides the amount of contact the defender caused on that shooter. The lead had a near perfect angle to see between those players. Looking at the body action of the shooter, it suggests she was rerouted by the contact making the shot more difficult.

I still work a fair amount of 2-man and I know that as the L I would hope I'd come get this.

I usually agree with pretty much all your posts but not here. The dribbler doesn't ever appear to try and change directions (the girl is going north south the whole way). There is little to no contact by #30 and she is moving with the defender.

The PC is a blatant miss and the call that was made was bad IMO because the shooter keeps moving in the same direction and the contact by #30 here again is minimal to none. If the shooter had changed directions towards the basket then ya maybe, but the contact wasn't there IMO. Overall this sequence looks bad but we have all had games that if we analyze one sequence it won't look good on us as a crew.

This unfortunately decided the game.

Just focused on the shooting foul. I don't see the lead having good position at all on this. Game situation is clock is under 3 seconds. I think should've been all the way cross the key there to have a good angle on the play. If there is a cross court pass to someone on the other side then the clock's gonna expire.

I think you have to consider how the play got there. My guess (and it doesn't fully show it on the video) was that it was a full court press and he was probably coming down the other side as the play developed. I think he had a good view of what needed to be seen...far better than the camera angle.

While some people like to think there is some magical opaque wall on the far lane line that keeps a lead from having a good look at anything across the lane. It just isn't so. Some plays are harder to see, but not all and the good 2-man official will know when he has a good look and when he doesn't even if he can't get across.

All I really want to know was whether he had a sight line between the players and was the distance reasonable.

In this case, he wasn't any farther from the point of contact than a normal trail would have been. He was somewhere between 15' and 20' from the play. The trail would usually be just as far. And, being a transition play, he was probably far closer than the trail. 15-20 feet from a point of contact is about the norm.

What about the angle he had. Was it between the players or was he straightlined? He had pretty much a textbook angle through the players as they came together. His view of the play was uncompromised.

Could he have been closer? Sure. But, would it have given him any better view of the play. Only if he was nearsighted and couldn't see more than 10'.

Contact on the dribbler is negligible, so going to disagree with Camron on that one. The crash has to have a whistle. But it didn't - and the foul on the shooter is legit. I also have no problem with L's positioning, his angle was fine on that play. The big mistake is no charge on the dribbler.

I'm of two minds on #30 vs. A1. I can see calling the initial contact near the division line if I'm the T on that play and in the heat of the moment. A lot would depend on what we'd been calling up to that point. However looking at the replay I can also see passing on that situation.

But...there had to be a call on the block/charge. Even, as the T, if you're not sure who the foul is on at the moment you blow the whistle just blow the whistle. I'm not saying make something up. Blow the whistle, don't give a preliminary and take a beat to process what happened. We all work hard out there and if I'm an observer I can forgive not putting a whistle on the contact at the beginning or end of that sequence but to have nothing on the train wreck in the middle shouldn't have been an option.

Are you talking about the crash or the shooting foul?

My criticism of the Lead isn't that he called a shooting foul, but that he was willing to come out of his PCA to penalize that contact yet wasn't willing to come save the day on the much more obvious crash.

My guess as to why is that he ran all the way down to the endline prematurely during this action. That positioning put him far away from the sideline crash and made him reluctant to whistle. He should have been FTLE at the time of the crash and then hustled down to the normal close-down Lead position should the dribbler have gotten past the defenders cleanly.

One can only set up early and receive the play as Lead in 3-man.

I'd rather get the call right, and if I (or the crew) miss one, get the next one right without worrying about the score or whether the game will (or won't) end in a tie.

This is the second time in the past couple of days that someone has intimated (or I have inferred) that the score and time of the game should influence our calls or the "benefit of the doubt." I disagree strongly.

The crash. And I don't see why the T couldn't have gotten that, despite the inferior angle. We make those calls all the time.

I'm the same way. The trail should have gotten the PC foul on the sideline, 2-man or not.

It was a 3, the line she steps on is the college 3. There is an inside line.

Not in that situation. The dribbler is moving toward the sideline. It does not look like she was being pushed or guided in by the defense.

No way. The dribbler is being legally sealed off -- she has no intention of coming back to the center of the floor.

+1000 on No way...... Good defense

I can buy passing on it but is is far from good or legal defense.

eh, I don't like the charging call in that situation. It's a player breaking the press and someone getting in the way at the last moment. Charging calls are really unusual on press breaks and of course there are times to call them but I don't see it here. Good no call even though I'm in the minority here. And no a ref doesn't have to blow the whistle even though there is a 'crash'. Good no-call and play on.
As for the shooting foul, hard to say. Looks like it shouldn't have been called but maybe the ref had a better angle, seemed like a slight bump. I wouldn't have called it but I can't criticize the ref who did although as Nevada notes positioning is an issue.

This philosophy makes no sense at all.

You know why charges are unusual during presses (or any full court situation really)? Because the dribbler has the whole court to avoid a defender so it's hard for the defender to get in the path of the dribbler. So I'm not sue what this being a press has to do with whether it's a charge or not. If you think the contact is marginal, then just say so.

What's the point of the defense even trying then? Especially on games you are officiating? You have negated any reason for a full court press. The defense can only force a TO on a 10 second violation or steal.

Totally and completely disagree with this. I really have a hard time thinking you actually believe this. This is not a good no call, and it is compounded by an extreme reach when the foul on the shooter is called. This isn't a no call situation as the offense runs right over the defense. You can't pass on this just because it isn't on a drive to the basket and happens in a pressing situation. That's a ludicrous statement.

Isn't that kinda the definition of a charge?

I can get in your way at the last moment and it be a blocking foul.

Or not. Thus the word "kinda"

I think it is a matter if distance. At best, he was 50' from the sideline crash...at the far sideline.
How do you come to that conclusion. He is only visible at that spot just as the shot goes up. There is nothing in the video that tells you how long he was there.

There seemed to be a lot of players between anywhere he might have been and the crash. Perhaps he just didn't have a clear view.


The inconsistencies in what is expected of him on this play are just silly. Why is it that he should have reached 50+ feet with perhaps a questionable view to make one call but going 20 feet with a clear view is bad??? Seems more like a case of armchair QB than a realistic and fair analysis.

Personally, I think this is the trail's to get -- he may have been focusing on the other defender, though, and all of a sudden someone appeared and got run over. I can see the T not getting this for that reason. But then the L would've had to. Somebody had to.

Here's an idea - a third official would have. :)