Wichita State-Louisville block (Armstead 1st half)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Adam

Block call at 5:19, first half. I'd love another look.

[Camron Rust]

I guess it might have been for #2's arm across the front of the shooter on the jump stop but there really isn't much there.

[OKREF]

Two things. This was the one call I though they missed for sure, should have passed on this. Also, if the other was a continuation, why wasn't this one?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Two things. This was the one call I though they missed for sure, should have passed on this. Also, if the other was a continuation, why wasn't this one?

Different official made the call.

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Different official made the call.

Peace

I know. So normal shooting motion varies on official to official. If the other one was shouldn't this one be also? In my opinion either both were or both weren't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I know. So normal shooting motion varies on official to official. If the other one was shouldn't this one be also? In my opinion either both were or both weren't.

This is really hard for you to understand? Two different officials, with two different experiences or understandings of what they saw. I am really not trying to be crass by saying this, but you really have no idea why two different officials in the same game would rule on something different?

Peace

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is really hard for you to understand? Two different officials, with two different experiences or understandings of what they saw. I am really not trying to be crass by saying this, but you really have no idea why two different officials in the same game would rule on something different?

Peace

Yes I understand. If the other player was in his shooting motion so was this this guy.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes I understand. If the other player was in his shooting motion so was this this guy.

Once again, two different officials. Sounds pretty simple to me. And I not sure the other official saw the first play.

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I guess it might have been for #2's arm across the front of the shooter on the jump stop but there really isn't much there.

One of John Adam' absolutes for NCAA-M is that a foul should be called anytime a defender puts two hands on a ball handler. It is clear from the preliminary mechanic given that this is exactly why the official saw.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Two things. This was the one call I though they missed for sure, should have passed on this. Also, if the other was a continuation, why wasn't this one?

See my response to CR as to why this is called in NCAA-M. Not a continuation play because foul occured when ball handler was in the air for his jump stop. At that time, he hadnt started his shooting motion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by johnny d

One of John Adam' absolutes for NCAA-M is that a foul should be called anytime a defender puts two hands on a ball handler. It is clear from the preliminary mechanic given that this is exactly why the official saw.

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

As far as Adam's is concerned, there is no room for advantage/disadvantage or judgement, hence the term absolute. In his eyes, every time the defender puts two hands on the ball handler it has to be a foul, no questions asked.

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That may be but it is contrary to the advantage philosophy as it was brushing contact at most and took away a bucket from the offended team. Sort of like the two bodies down philosophy, it needs to be used intelligently and I don't think it was in that case.

Cam - for conversation purposes only, I don't think we can be "intelligent", regarding absolutes. Whether you think there was any disadvantage put on the dribbler on that play, that is a whistle for "two hands", just like John Adams wants...now if you wanna debate if it is a continous motion play, I will agree it is.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

As far as Adam's is concerned, there is no room for advantage/disadvantage or judgement, hence the term absolute.

Either you're completely misunderstanding Adams, or Adams hasn't read the rule book.

The third option, I suppose, is that Adams only thinks this way when it concerns two hands on the ball handler, and advantage/disadvantage still applies to every other contact situation.

As Camron indicates, this is the problem with absolutes. The absolute wasn't developed for this type of play. Even a delay of half a second would have allowed this play to finish without a whistle. If Adams wants this called, so be it, but I wouldn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Either you're completely misunderstanding Adams, or Adams hasn't read the rule book.

The third option, I suppose, is that Adams only thinks this way when it concerns two hands on the ball handler, and advantage/disadvantage still applies to every other contact situation.

I honestly think the "absolute" part was to make officials get over the idea of just looking at this from and advantage/disadvantage standpoint. I also agree that there is some room for usage of advantage/disadvantage, it is just not and excuse to pass on obvious fouls. Also RSBQ is used in Adam's philosophy so that requires judgment to decide when those things take place.

Peace