Missouri State/Wichita State video requests

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich1

And, as long as I'm in preach mode, experience doesn't always equal competence so all questions, comments, and opinions should be welcomed in our professional discussions on the forum.

It is one thing to say I have a judgment difference and try to argue a point based off of an incomplete understanding of a rule. No one is saying anyone at any experience or level should not speak. But it is another thing when you are debating with people giving you a rule and you focus on a small part of a rule that does not focus on the play at hand.

Peace

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is one thing to say I have a judgment difference and try to argue a point based off of an incomplete understanding of a rule. No one is saying anyone at any experience or level should not speak. But it is another thing when you are debating with people giving you a rule and you focus on a small part of a rule that does not focus on the play at hand.

Peace

Two others have been able to explain things. What does that tell you?

Thank you for trying to help, but you're now coming off as condescending.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Two others have been able to explain things. What does that tell you?

Thank you for trying to help, but you're now coming off as condescending.

A lot of people gave you the actual rules that applied. You were still asking for explanations. What should that tell me?

You can make this about others all you like, but the reality is that you were debating this with many people that not only were disagreeing with you, but have been officiating longer than you. That tells me more. Nothing wrong with being young and confident, but just know who you are talking to in these discussions. This IMO was not even close of a debate based off of rules alone. And we have extensive rules debates on this site as well.

Peace

[Raymond]

Play 1: PC, or tell defenders they have to be matadors.

Play 2: PC, even under new rule.

Play 3: I can live with a block, new rule makes it hard. Lead can't see thru bodies to see when upward motion started.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Note also in Play 1 that he didn't call a block, he called a hand heck and used the "arm bar" signal. I really don't think the defender arm barred him, but you could argue for a block.

It looks like he got halfway to a PC signal (hand behind head) but changed his mind and an "armbar" signal was easier than a block signal. Should have stuck with his initial instinct in my opinion as this looked like a PC foul to me.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I don't have a problem with all three being called blocks... In high school I would be morelikely to call this a charge but in ncaa I see all three as 50/50 in real time.

Play 1 is a bang/bang play, I thought block when I saw it, but I can see a charge on replay

Play 2 HS charge - NCAAM block - I thought he made a little hop to get his position somewhere between the shooters upward motion starting and leaving the floor. That lateral movement would have been much more pronounced from L (weak running block signal doesn't help sell the call at all)

Play 3 HS charge (all day) - NCAAM - my initial reation was charge, but there may be some slight lateral movement after upward motion began.

[jeremy341a]

1. Charge
2. No Call
3. Charge
4. Black Ball