SWAC Men's Championship Game--Video Request

[Raymond]

Initial contact should have been a foul per the emphasis on rule 10-1-4, but at the point the whistle was blown, that should have been a PC.

[JugglingReferee]

I think the NCAA has officials steering away from calling PCs. This is textbook PC.

[Camron Rust]

Pc

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I think the NCAA has officials steering away from calling PCs. This is textbook PC.

Totally agree with this. It seems that they are always defaulting to a blocking foul for every block/charge play when they really should be doing it on shooting block charges(upward motion) and not on drive plays such as this. These non shooting non upward plays should be called the same before. That is great defense being penalized.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Initial contact should have been a foul per the emphasis on rule 10-1-4, but at the point the whistle was blown, that should have been a PC.

Really? I don't see the defender gaining any advantage from that momentary touching with the hands. In fact I see the contact uncalled in every D1 game I watch. I know it's a POE, but something that brief? Not a foul. Ant versus elephant.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Really? I don't see the defender gaining any advantage from that momentary touching with the hands. In fact I see the contact uncalled in every D1 game I watch. I know it's a POE, but something that brief? Not a foul. Ant versus elephant.

And even if they were, it wouldn't be a block as was signaled.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Really? I don't see the defender gaining any advantage from that momentary touching with the hands. In fact I see the contact uncalled in every D1 game I watch. I know it's a POE, but something that brief? Not a foul. Ant versus elephant.

I disagree. The contact beforehand by the defender was an arm bar, not a touching with the hands. This action, even when brief has been called much more consistently as a foul than the brief touching with hands has been. The arm bar call does not require a judgment as to whether or not the defender gained an advantage, it falls under one of Adam's automatics. Also, touching with a hand is legal. It does not become illegal until it is done repeatedly, continuously, or with both hands.

[APG]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Really? I don't see the defender gaining any advantage from that momentary touching with the hands. In fact I see the contact uncalled in every D1 game I watch. I know it's a POE, but something that brief? Not a foul. Ant versus elephant.

Without regard to the play at hand, 10-1-4 is written and enforced in a manner such that you don't judge advantage gained or not. It is a foul simply because.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Initial contact should have been a foul per the emphasis on rule 10-1-4, but at the point the whistle was blown, that should have been a PC.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Really? I don't see the defender gaining any advantage from that momentary touching with the hands. In fact I see the contact uncalled in every D1 game I watch. I know it's a POE, but something that brief? Not a foul. Ant versus elephant.

I don't either. As someone on the Women's side who's had it beaten into his head to blow a whistle on these the only call under 10-1-4 would be the arm bar. For an "automatic" foul due to an arm bar it has to be extended away from the defender's body. B1 doesn't get much of a chance to do that before he's hit by A1's arm (then shoulder, etc.).

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I don't either. As someone on the Women's side who's had it beaten into his head to blow a whistle on these the only call under 10-1-4 would be the arm bar. For an "automatic" foul due to an arm bar it has to be extended away from the defender's body. B1 doesn't get much of a chance to do that before he's hit by A1's arm (then shoulder, etc.).

In every video bulletin sent out by Adam's this year, there are plays where he either congratulates the officials for calling the arm bar without extension away from the defenders body, or admonishes the officials that don't make that call when it occurs. Yet another difference in how things are expected to be handled on the NCAA-M vs. NCAA-W side.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by johnny d

In every video bulletin sent out by Adam's this year, there are plays where he either congratulates the officials for calling the arm bar without extension away from the defenders body, or admonishes the officials that don't make that call when it occurs. Yet another difference in how things are expected to be handled on the NCAA-M vs. NCAA-W side.

Why am I not surprised? The NCAAW bulletins - and we haven't had many - have reminded us the auto-foul for the arm bar is for contact away from the body. If the arm bar is next to/close to the body there's no foul unless there's continuous contact.

In real-time I was more inclined to put this under the defender raising his hands within his vertical plane and/or defending himself because contact was coming...mainly because he was in "retreat" mode (i.e., moving backwards) as opposed to moving forwards in "attack" mode.

[bob jenkins]

NCAAW: Ball Handler or Dribbler
a. Definition. A ball handler or dribbler is any player with player control
(holding or dribbling) outside the lane area, either facing or with her back to
the basket. An arm-bar is contact with the forearm that is away from the body.

NCAAM: Section 5. Hand-Checking (Impeding the Progress of a Player)
To curtail hand-checking, officials must address it at the beginning of the game,
and related personal fouls must be called consistently throughout the game. Some
guidelines for officials to use when officiating hand-checking:
a. When a defensive player keeps a hand or forearm on an opponent, it is a
personal foul.
b. When a defensive player puts two hands on an opponent, it is a personal foul.
c. When a defensive player continually jabs by extending his arm(s) and placing
a hand or forearm on the opponent, it is a personal foul.
d. When a defensive player uses an arm bar to impede the progress of a dribbler,
it is a personal foul.

(The term is not defined, that I can see).

(Emphasis added)

[walt]

From the video angle and the position of the official, one of the first things he sees is the defender's forearm coming in. If I had to guess, that is why he immediately went to a block call. Why he didn't call the arm bar, I have no idea but I think that is why he called a defensive foul. To me, this is PC whether in NCAA-W or NFHS. The forearm wasn't extended away from the body IMHO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by walt

From the video angle and the position of the official, one of the first things he sees is the defender's forearm coming in. If I had to guess, that is why he immediately went to a block call. Why he didn't call the arm bar, I have no idea but I think that is why he called a defensive foul. To me, this is PC whether in NCAA-W or NFHS. The forearm wasn't extended away from the body IMHO.

A forearm wouldn't be signaled as a block. It would be a push or illegal use of hands.

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Initial contact should have been a foul per the emphasis on rule 10-1-4, but at the point the whistle was blown, that should have been a PC.

Having the pleasure of working with BNR before, he is absolutley correct. There are two hands from the defender on the dribbler. That is a fouls on the defense, regardless of the adv / disadv theory .....