Video Request: Kentucky-Arkansas - 2:12 in Overtime (Clips Added)

[VTOfficial]

Could you please post video of the throw-in at the 2:12 mark of overtime? The Kentucky player receives the pass right at the division line and then turns the ball over on a backcourt call.

Is there enough contact by the defender to make the guy lose his balance?

Originally Posted by VTOfficial

Is there enough contact by the defender to make the guy lose his balance?

Not at that level.

You can watch the play here.

[Camron Rust]

Yes. When you knock a player into a violation that would have not otherwise occurred, that is the definition of advantage.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not at that level.

You can watch the play here.

What does this level have to do with this play? NCAA actually advocates more calls than the NF.

Peace

I'd also like to see the slip play at 15:57 in 2nd half, and the block/charge play with 9 seconds left in 2nd.

[JetMetFan]

Here are the plays...

Originally Posted by VTOfficial

Could you please post video of the throw-in at the 2:12 mark of overtime? The Kentucky player receives the pass right at the division line and then turns the ball over on a backcourt call.

Is there enough contact by the defender to make the guy lose his balance?

Originally Posted by AremRed

I'd also like to see the slip play at 15:57 in 2nd half

Originally Posted by AremRed

and the block/charge play with 9 seconds left in 2nd.

[zm1283]

1. Pushing foul
2. Nothing
3. Block. Defender got there before the upward motion but then slid to his left when the shooter left the floor.

[bob jenkins]

1) Foul.

2) No comment

3) Block. defender was still moving forward as player started upward motion.

Play 1: Nothing

Play 2: Charge

Play 3: Block, but it's close. Charge under NFHS: I think the defender was in the path the whole way, I don't think the lean contributed to the loss of LGP. Only issue is upward motion and whether defender was still moving forward at the time (thus losing LGP), and that is close too.

[Ref16]

I think you have to call a push on play #1. No matter how minor that bump may have been-it is the sole cause of the violation and I am not ever going to penalize the offensive player by taking the ball from them in that situation.

I am ok with the no call on play 2. It looked to me like the defender over exaggerated the play in an attempt to draw the charge.

I would have block as well on play #3 for the same reasons mentioned in a previous post a few minutes ago, he explained it well.

[Lcubed48]

#1 violation

#2 charge

#3 block

[CountTheBasket]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes. When you knock a player into a violation that would have not otherwise occurred, that is the definition of advantage.

I have actually said to a disputing coach versions of, "there wasn't a ton of contact/may have been a weak foul call, but it caused the offense to ____(travel, step out of bounds etc.) and gotten a decent response. Any thoughts on using this explanation....?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CountTheBasket

I have actually said to a disputing coach versions of, "there wasn't a ton of contact/may have been a weak foul call, but it caused the offense to ____(travel, step out of bounds etc.) and gotten a decent response. Any thoughts on using this explanation....?

Don't use this.

add "I have no choice but to call it."

[ballgame99]

1. Unless you believe A1's momentum was sufficient that he would have violated without the contact, you have to get that push. In this case, A1 was clearly in control of his momentum and was not going to violate without the push.

2. Great no call.

3. I think it was a block based on that baseline view, but that lean would have been hard to see from where L was, with a body between him and the play. It was really close. C had a good look and came in hard, fortunately for the crew he didn't signal the PC (not saying that's what he had, it just would have been a disaster if he came out with one). The only thing worse than a blarge, is a blarge with 9 seconds to go in regulation of a tie ballgame!

[BryanV21]

Why even say the "weak call" part?

"There wasn't a lot of contact, but it was enough to cause the opponent to violate. I'm not going to penalize the opponent for violating, when he wouldn't have done so without the slight push."

BTW...

1) Push, for reasons described above.

2) I initially had a charge, as the defender looked set a step and a half before the dribbler made contact. And after further viewing, I still have that. The defender may have oversold it a bit, but there was enough contact to justify the call.

3) I initially had a block, as the defender never seemed to get set. I see him moving right up until contact... which is made to look worse by the fact he leans back well before contact is made. And after looking at it a few times, and in slow motion, I have the same thing. However, to add, the defender steps towards the dribbler after the dribbler passes his primary defender. If the secondary defender had merely stepped sideways into the dribblers path, and got set (both feet down and straight up in verticality), then a charge. But he doesn't do that.

In regards to verticality... does losing verticality lead to a block call? Or is verticality only used in terms of illegal contact of the arm? Because when contact is made the defender is leaning back enough where he's no longer "in the tube of verticality". I mean, I think of a defender that has verticality as being in a tube, sort of like the "virtual plane of glass" that a defender on an in-bounds play can't break through.

One more thing... isn't there something about a defender leaning back during a block/charge play? Something like putting the offensive player in a dangerous position, so that he could land wrong and get hurt? I don't remember reading it ever, but it rings some kind of bell.