State Playoffs - Call or No Call

[Blindolbat]

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.

[OrStBballRef]

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....

[Terrapins Fan]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[OKREF]

I've got a PC

[APG]

I've got a 3 man call there

[Camron Rust]

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.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[deecee]

PC and a no call on the shot.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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.

[Blindolbat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

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'.

[canuckrefguy]

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.