Belmont-UNC: Block/Push/No-call (video)
 

Thoughts?

I've often wondered - revised guidelines or not - how these end up being no-calls but that's just me.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pC_fQfmoqL0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ship it.

Agree....blatant and obvious push on UNC. There is no reason to not call that at any stage of any game.

EDIT....and I see that Belmont was able to still pull out the win without getting that deserved call so late in the game....justice prevails. Interesting stat from the game...Belmont was whistleed for substantially more fouls than UNC and UNC shot over twice as many FTs yet Belmont made nearly the same number of FTs as UNC missed more FTs than Belmont attempted....91% vs 46%...ouch.

I'm not that experienced with 3-man; Since all the players were in the backcourt due to the press, where should the Lead be in this situation? I'm assuming that they wouldn't be all the way down on the other end of the court if no players are there yet.

Since the contact was between the players closest to the Lead (wherever the lead was), would this be the Lead's call? Or is the Lead supposed to stay out of anything in the back court -- meaning that this is the C's primary?

L should have been somewhere between the 28' mark at the other end of the court and the division line.

C or L can get this (C is probably looking at the players along the FT line)

The new L should be a step or two ahead of the last player. Nine players are in UNC’s front court when the play begins so the L is likely ahead of the last Belmont defender. In terms of who has what, the C covers the area between the top of each key. The contact was right at the top of the key so it was C’s call.

Should be C's call, but he appears to be looking at all of the guys in the middle of the lane. I would think he would have seen this anyway, but one never knows.

I don't blame the officials at all for eating their whistles on the play.

The Belmont player never got legal guarding position, while the player for UNC didn't extend his arms or commit any act like he was pushing. I know the contact was a bit much, but contact alone does not mean there was a foul. If it wasn't for the fact that the defender was a little off balance I bet he doesn't fall, and nobody questions the no-call. But people see a player fall and think there must be a foul somewhere.

Most of the time when there is a "crash" like this, there is a penalty somewhere. But this looks like one of those cases where there isn't.

LGP is not the issue. He set a screen and was moving in the same direction of the opponent and got run over. LGP applies to the player with the ball, not an off ball player.

Peace

doh!

Even if LGP is required, he certainly does have it.

Two feet down, facing his opponent. Moving backwards and laterally the whole time, thus never losing LGP.

I'm not sure that's how I see it, but if I were an observer I wouldn't make a big deal about it either way.

Curiously, which part do you think he's missing?

The defender seems to slow down in order to draw the push. If the defender was moving backward and laterally correctly, the offensive player wouldn't have hit him hard enough to knock him over.

Like I originally said, the offensive player doesn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms, or lean forward into the defender.

So I'm not sure who to blame for the contact, thus making me okay with the non-call.

Watching this in real time I can see this call going either way. When the play is slowed down: Seems as if the defensive player was anticipating the contact and started to fall prior to.