Marquette vs Villanova--Video Request

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And then, if the L says he had LGP out of the RA and stepped back, the discussion is over because it would no longer be an RA play. (NOT saying the player did have LGP or that the lead thought so)

This might technically be true, but in reality it isn't going to happen that way. Once the C or T come in the lead is going to change the call 999/1000 times. It is assumed that the C or T are only coming when they are 100% positive that it was/wasn't an RA play. If there is any doubt, we do not come in with the information. If it turns out the C or T was wrong, they will be the one getting dinged by the evaluator/assignor.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And then, if the L says he had LGP out of the RA and stepped back, the discussion is over because it would no longer be an RA play. (NOT saying the player did have LGP or that the lead thought so)

Would never happen. If I'm coming to you, I'm 100% sure and you're changing it.

Just like a partner coming to me on an OOB call he thinks I missed. I'm changing it, I'm not going to argue with him on the floor.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rich

Would never happen. If I'm coming to you, I'm 100% sure and you're changing it.

Just like a partner coming to me on an OOB call he thinks I missed. I'm changing it, I'm not going to argue with him on the floor.

It's not an argument. I'm L and C comes to me and says "B1 was in the RA." If I say to the C, "I know but I have B1 establishing LGP outside of the RA and backing in" the discussion is over just as quickly as if I had accepted C's information and gone with it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's not an argument. I'm L and C comes to me and says "B1 was in the RA." If I say to the C, "I know but I have B1 establishing LGP outside of the RA and backing in" the discussion is over just as quickly as if I had accepted C's information and gone with it.

I agree with JetMet.

If I didn't see that the player was in the RA, then I change it. <-- happens 99% of the time

If I see that the player was in the RA, but I have some other reason for it being a charge (player established outside; offense led with foot or arm; play started in LDB (NCAAW only)), then I explain it briefly and stick with my call <-- happens 1% of the time.

Same as if the ball goes out on my line and you come to me saying it was tipped out top -- 99% of the time I change it, but if the ball was tipped again that you didn't see, I stick with my call.

[maroonx]

Was that the proper mechanic for PCF on that play? Looks like official was showboating.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by maroonx

Was that the proper mechanic for PCF on that play? Looks like official was showboating.

Really?

Really?

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by maroonx

Was that the proper mechanic for PCF on that play? Looks like official was showboating.

If I have a call that wipes off the game-winning buzzer-beating score, you can bet I'm selling the heck out of it. Whether the mechanic is perfect is far less important than 1) does everyone know what you have? and 2) have you done what you can to make them believe you are right?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

If I have a call that wipes off the game-winning buzzer-beating score, you can bet I'm selling the heck out of it. Whether the mechanic is perfect is far less important than 1) does everyone know what you have? and 2) have you done what you can to make them believe you are right?

Exactly. Anyone who thinks that going fist / hand to the back of the head / point there would be BETTER is missing the big picture.

[APG]

Originally Posted by maroonx

Was that the proper mechanic for PCF on that play? Looks like official was showboating.

Curious...why do you think the official was showboating?

[Toren]

I have an RA block. But beyond that I'm not even pointing to the RA because this is a garden variety block. I do not have LGP before the start of the upward motion by the defender.

Block, count it.

[deecee]

Im surprised no one has had 3 traveling violations yet.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

Im surprised no one has had 3 traveling violations yet.

Give it time.