Video request Dayton/Syracuse (Video)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So...could the C have come in with a whistle on that play? You NCAA-M guys can answer that...in an NCAA-W game, I would expect the C to have secondary whistle on that play.

Rocky, I'm not sure that would have been an easy one for the C to get in one of our games just because of the defender's angle. The C probably sees the contact and the block but most likely would've had trouble figuring out which came first.

I think the T would definitely get it since we don't have to worry about the above-the-rim stuff. Heck, I know I picked up a couple of those this past season.

Play 1: Foul. This reminds me of the recent Big 10 tournament game where the Trail called this sort of contact. Here is the thread.

Play 2: Not a travel. Unfortunately many referees will call this, which leads to fans, players, and coaches expecting this to be called every time.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Play 1: Foul. This reminds me of the recent Big 10 tournament game where the Trail called this sort of contact. Here is the thread.
....

Totally different play, and the Trail had an unobstructed to the contact that the Lead could not see because he stopped running and crouched down.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Totally different play, and the Trail had an unobstructed to the contact that the Lead could not see because he stopped running and crouched down.

Every play is different, that's why I said "reminds".

[JRutledge]

In the first video: I do not see a foul on the second play. I see more of a foul on the block, but understand why a foul was not called. Let them be athletes.

In the second video: Absolutely no travel. It was clearly a bobble.

Peace

[Rich]

I get why the L passed on the contact, but I wouldn't have. The body contact wasn't incidental to the blocked shot, IMO. Sometimes, it's just a foul.

I agree with the shuffling into position comments above -- he ended up straight-lining himself by not getting to the end line.

[Rob1968]

2nd Video: Fumble, shuffle, gather, one" power dribble" (very difficult to see - the ball between the ballhandlers legs).
So, if the C didn't see the dribble, or thought the ballhandler had his pivot foot off the floor when he dribbled, he could justify the travel call.
The timing of his whistle seems to indicate that he didn't make the call at the time of the fumble.

[Multiple Sports]

I found it ironic that on the the first play ( block shot ), that the T trusted the lead and off they went down the other end.....however on the other end the T comes and calls a foul on a guy going 57 in a 55 when another cop has been on the scene for the whole play.....

No way am I getting that marginal play from the T, now maybe some of you super heroes or anybody working NCAA - W would get those calls, but definitely not in the leagues along the east coast.....heck you could get shot along the I - 95 corridor for calling that during the summer ( and in Hampton as well, BNR )

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rooster

What if he saw the body contact? Is this crew-saver territory? Especially considering the double whammy Syracuse gets on the next play on the other end? Not trying to be argumentative and all, just curious, having most of my experience in two whistles... (For the record my guess: it's not CS territory.)

Originally Posted by OKREF

I think this is the right answer. Someone has to get this. Especially since they go to the other end and really, really reach for one there.

So ... the first foul should have been called ESPECIALLY because they knew they were about to call one the other way in the future? Really?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Rocky, I'm not sure that would have been an easy one for the C to get in one of our games just because of the defender's angle. The C probably sees the contact and the block but most likely would've had trouble figuring out which came first.

I think the T would definitely get it since we don't have to worry about the above-the-rim stuff. Heck, I know I picked up a couple of those this past season.

Hmmm...I can see that coming from the T. Would like to think the C would hustle down and get into position to have an angle on the play. But then I think the L should have hustled down also.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So ... the first foul should have been called ESPECIALLY because they knew they were about to call one the other way in the future? Really?

What I mean is, the first one needs a whistle. But if for whatever reason it is passed on, no way does the second play need a whistle.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So ... the first foul should have been called ESPECIALLY because they knew they were about to call one the other way in the future? Really?

OK, I'll play.

So ... you've never had an evaluator at a camp or a supervisor jump your shiza for not making a call, then making a bad call on the other end? Or riding you about calling a travel on A1 and then calling a foul on B1? Or whatever call, that in conjunction with another bad call, made the two plays stand out. What prognostic powers did he have? My turn... Really?

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Rooster

OK, I'll play.

So ... you've never had an evaluator at a camp or a supervisor jump your shiza for not making a call, then making a bad call on the other end? Or riding you about calling a travel on A1 and then calling a foul on B1? Or whatever call, that in conjunction with another bad call, made the two plays stand out. What prognostic powers did he have? My turn... Really?

MD can certainly speak for himself.

I tend to agree with your implication. I find it comical when, with the advantage of hindsight, as in the situation you proposed, an evaluator criticizes actions which were unrelated, except forensically/rhetorically, and post-occurence. It always smacks of the fallacy of the basic scientific method of evaluation - "A exists, and then B exists, therefore A must have caused B." Or, in this case, "therefore, both A and B must be the results of a similar cause."

[OKREF]

It does speak to decision making though. "Why would you let A go, then put a whistle on B".

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It does speak to decision making though. "Why would you let A go, then put a whistle on B".

Chicken dinner!