Post contact (video)
 

I thought these were interesting because they took place back-to-back. Thoughts?


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

Waldo from St. Mary's picked up another one of his fouls (I'm pretty sure it was the 10:54 mark in the second half if you can pull the video) where he was completely vertical. It was less off a foul than either of these two plays.

1. Minimal contact. All created by the ball handler. Basket goes. I got nuttin.
2. Minimal? contact all created by the defender moving into the ball handler. Missed shot. FTs. If this basket goes though, I have nothing. JMO.

I hope I won't be the only one to tell you this, but this is a bad way to officiate. If it's a foul, just call it.

Agreed, and I think officiating is moving away from this. I haven't watched the video, but I don't base my call on wehther the basket went in.

If the contact is both illegal and makes the shot noticeably more difficult, it's a foul, IMO. Whether it goes in is immaterial.

And you're penalizing the offense sometimes when they make the shot even though they were illegally contacted.

In the first play, the shooter jumps into the defender. In the second, the defender moves into the shooter, knocking him off balance. There are a lot harder fouls then that in a college game, but I would say the calls are certainly not terrible, even if we decide they are incorrect.

I gneerally agree with this. Red is not moving to the endline; white is. Foul on white; no foul on red.

First play defender is the primary defender isn't responsible for any of the contact and the basket went. Moving on.

2nd play defender is coming in as secondary. Steps into shooter and is responsible for contact. Not sure I would have had enough there to call it, but no problem with the foul call.

Both plays ruled correctly IMO.

1) B1 was legal, and contact initiated by A1 caused B1 to bend over.

2) B1 still moving into A1 when A1 begins upward motion.

Legal on the first, blocking foul on the second (though pushing works here, too).

Two correct calls.

Nothing in play 1, and a defensive blocking foul in play 2.

No foul in play 1 as contact was created by Team A.

Foul in play 2 because at the time of contact, Team B was moving forward.

I agree with everyone, but what looks funny is the message that's sent by the initial mechanics used by the official on play #2. He clearly is not calling a push or a block. His motion indicates he's calling a foul because the defenders arms were not vertical.

The defender did move his arms forward. And forward enough to be beyond vertical in my book. However, the illegal contact for me is with the body.

I agree with these calls.

1. No way I have anything here.
2. I noticed his arms coming down into the jumping shooter. I'm comfortable with calling either that contact or the body. Either way, two shots.

I like both calls. I DO NOT like the Superman mechanic. :eek:

Tell that to the NBA guys.

That's an authorized signal.

Okay?

None of us (That I know of) work NBA games, so it isn't really relevant right now.

Not On My Signal Chart ...
 

What's the difference between the Superman signal, and the Frankenstein's Monster signal? They're so similar.

Well he's either signalling a push or "arms non-vertical". Both are possible on this play.

1. Nothing
2. Foul on #15 White. That must be called to get it out the game.

#15? He missed. What exactly is it that you want to get out of the game?

Same thing that you want to get out of it.

What, fouls? I’m with Camron. The statement is a little confusing.

What did #15 do that you think should be called?

maroonx is either talking about the contact during the entry pass in the 2nd play (plus W15 looks to have his right arm around the offensive players torso), or W15's reaction to the foul call of putting his hands in the air. Take your pick.

Muchas Gracias

I listed 2 possibilities about what you might be talking about. It would be helpful if you would answer for yourself and quit being ambiguous. Man up.

If he doesn't want a serious discussion, then we don't need to worry about him providing any more information on what he sees.

I see nothing on him that I'd call.

I agree with you 100%.

Feel free to actually add something to the discussion. Otherwise....