Michigan-Louisville shooting foul clip (Hancock/Burke 1st half)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

Wait a minute, now. I didn't say there wasn't any contact.

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

I'm not guessing. Rather, I'm confirming the camera angle does not show any contact. haha!

So which is it?

A camera angle not showing contact is hardly the same as a camera angle showing there was no contact. There is no evidence the official got this call wrong. In fact, there are multiple points that can be seen in the video to support the call.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

So which is it?

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A camera angle not showing contact is hardly the same as a camera angle showing there was no contact. There is no evidence the official got this call wrong. In fact, there are multiple points that can be seen in the video to support the call.

I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

[peachbasket]

think about the play in question this way: If A1 was driving to the basket on one side of the lane and jumped laterally toward the hoop in an attempt to shoot - and at the same time B1 came from the opposite block and jumped laterally toward A1 - and they both collided in the air.....what would you have

I think the play in question might raise eyebrows on the amount of contact etc, but there is no question that the defender was not vertical nor legal regardless of which way the offensive play jumped.

If the defender was vertical and the shooter initiated contact, then we have PC foul or no call..

Just my opinion

[#olderthanilook]

Try this for some more fun: Go back and watch the video again. This time, focus on the shooter's feet after securing the ball and starting his shooting motion. Forget about the defender and any other contact.

Whatchya got?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".



I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.

It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

Try this for some more fun: Go back and watch the video again. This time, focus on the shooter's feet after securing the ball and starting his shooting motion. Forget about the defender and any other contact.

Whatchya got?

Nothing. He picks his pivot foot up prior to shooting, but doesn't put it back down til after the shot is released. That's nothing, technically or otherwise.

[Wellmer]

Can someone answer a hopefully simple question? Where was contact made? Looks like the only possible contact that could have been made was towards the end line side and if that's the case, how in the world could the T see that? Maybe he had x-ray vision?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

Try this for some more fun: Go back and watch the video again. This time, focus on the shooter's feet after securing the ball and starting his shooting motion. Forget about the defender and any other contact.

Whatchya got?

Two apples? Oh, what, that was a different question.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".

I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

Contact by the defense on the left side of the torso and left arm. This contact did not allow the normal shooting motion (two hands in contact with the ball on a jump shot) to take place. In addition the contact caused a shooter (who had hardly missed a 3 pt attempt for 2 weeks) to shoot the ball behind the backboard.

Seems easy to explain, although for me, I typically don't give lengthy explanations. Me: Shooter got hit during shot.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is where you're wrong. A defender doesn't have the right to land if doing so takes away from the opponents right to perform their actions.

The rules on airborne players are in relation to "guarding". They protect offensive players from being guarded illegally. They don't protect defensive players.

The defender has the responsibility to play defense within the guidelines of legal guarding. Jumping laterally is not within those guidelines. The only jump that is protected for the defender is a vertical jump.

This defender was moving but never had LGP. Even if he had LGP, jumping sideways and towards the shooter removes the protection of LGP. Any contact that happens is the responsibility of the defender.

I hear what you're saying. Any defender without LGP that decides to jump in the air is free game for the ballhandler/shooter to collide into any part of that defender and most likely be rewarded for doing so. I think that sums it up....

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Wellmer

Can someone answer a hopefully simple question? Where was contact made? Looks like the only possible contact that could have been made was towards the end line side and if that's the case, how in the world could the T see that? Maybe he had x-ray vision?

+1.... Answer: He couldn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Wellmer

Can someone answer a hopefully simple question? Where was contact made? Looks like the only possible contact that could have been made was towards the end line side and if that's the case, how in the world could the T see that? Maybe he had x-ray vision?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

+1.... Answer: He couldn't.

He couldn't?

Well for one that is his primary coverage. Secondly the Lead is not looking there (and that is obvious on the video). The play went to the lane and kicked out to outside the 3 point line. The Trail is watching that entire set up. So he must have seen it and felt it was a foul. And on a shooter it does not take much contact to call a foul.

This is not Women's coverage area.

Peace

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), 1: he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." 2: I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

1 I'm more than good with that.

2 That's what I thought CR was saying.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

What the heck???

It is T's call all the way. T has that play because the L has all the post play. And no way is T straightlined - he is looking right down the court between the two players. The camera angle is straightlined.

I don't think I said it wasn't his call. From his angle he misses Hancock leaning left to try and initiate contact. Based on the physical play of the game, I felt this was inconsistent if there was any contact. Nothing there imo. Not the worst call, I just didn't like it.

Good acting job by Hancock though