Texas-Maryland Womens (Video)

[Raymond]

A1 was falling on her own. As she was falling she then came in contact with the defender. I personally am not go to penalize the defender for that.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I did not say that. I am penalizing the defense for contact causing the dribbler to go down. The contact is not incidental because the defender never established Legal Guarding Position, and as such is liable for the contact in this situation.

My comment still stands: it was silly for the defender to put herself in that position.

What's the relationship between LGP and incidental contact? Your argument does not make sense to me?

Are you saying that when there is incidental contact you call it a foul if the defender doesn't have LGP. Because by rule, contact that is incidental is not a foul. Period.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We do not call fouls based on the evaluation or rating of their defense.

I do. It's called "refereeing the defense".

You comment is inane. We literally call fouls based on our evaluation of legal/illegal defense.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

What the defender did was just silly. You don't guard like that. That's not LGP. Unless the dribbler runs into the back of a defender to try to get a call, I am calling this contact every time.

Agree...i didn't mean to imply I thought it was not a foul, just describing the actions.

There was contact and it was illegal contact. A1 may have been a little off balance on her own but the defense finished the job. I previously said I had a block on this without hesitation.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

What's the relationship between LGP and incidental contact? Your argument does not make sense to me?

Are you saying that when there is incidental contact you call it a foul if the defender doesn't have LGP. Because by rule, contact that is incidental is not a foul. Period.

Not saying this couldn't be incidental contact in some eyes (I have a foul), but as every official should understand from a cursory reading of the rulebook is that the onus is on the defender to establish and maintain Legal Guarding Position if they don't want to be called for a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I think this is a dangerous line of thinking....

IMO the same applies here. It does not really matter why the ball handler went down without contact b/c she did. And I think the slight contact by the defender here with a ball handler who had already lost her balance is incidental.

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not saying this couldn't be incidental contact in some eyes (I have a foul), but as every official should understand from a cursory reading of the rulebook is that the onus is on the defender to establish and maintain Legal Guarding Position if they don't want to be called for a foul.

That's all well and good. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind saying the contact isn't incidental because LGP wasn't established.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

Got it. We'll just agree to disagree. I think she went down because she lost her balance on her own. The anticipation of contact very well may be the reason she lost her balance on her own but IMO the contact itself did not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I do. It's called "refereeing the defense".

You comment is inane. We literally call fouls based on our evaluation of legal/illegal defense.

OK, and if you look at the defender, the defender did not cause any contact. The contact that occurred appeared to be because the defender is falling already. And if you watch the defender, that is relatively obvious and probably why there was no call in the first place.

Peace

Originally Posted by VaTerp

That's all well and good. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind saying the contact isn't incidental because LGP wasn't established.

I'm not saying there can't be incidental just because the defender does not have LGP, I am saying the contact in this play is not incidental due to contact being caused by the defender who was not in LGP. I know the rule, calling this a foul is a judgement call.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, and if you look at the defender, the defender did not cause any contact. The contact that occurred appeared to be because the defender is falling already. And if you watch the defender, that is relatively obvious and probably why there was no call in the first place.

Huh? The defender caused all the contact. The defender tried to cut off the dribbler and ran obliquely into the dribblers path, while never having established Legal Guarding Position. In my judgement, that is a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Huh? The defender caused all the contact. The defender tried to cut off the dribbler and ran obliquely into the dribblers path, while never having established Legal Guarding Position. In my judgement, that is a foul.

Whatever you say. I think the defender did not cause anything but force the BH to adjust. As I said before the BH looks like they were overcompensating because the defender was in their way and fell down. I am not asking for your agreement. And this is why it is called judgment and why we all get paid the big bucks to make these calls or decisions. I am just telling you what I saw when I watched the video. Nothing you have said has changed my original view of the play.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That really isn't what I was saying. She went down due to the illegal contact. I was just describing why she appeared to be off balance, not that she fell on her own.

I agree with this. The more off-balance she - or anyone - is, the less contact they'll need to fall down. The fact the defender didn't have LGP doesn't help her (the defender's) cause in my eyes. Plus, when I see plays like this the scenario from the preseason video always pops into my head.

[All_Heart]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

100% a technical foul by the Maryland coach for jumping up and down and hollering.

Are NCAAW officials neutered? This has to be one of the easiest Ts on a coach that is possible.

You are assuming the officials saw the coach's actions and made a decision to not call a technical. There are some actions we don't observe because we are zeroing in on a potential problem area. This is the case with this play with players going to the ground. Unless we start going to the monitor to review all actions on the sideline it is not always "easy" to see the actions (jumping, wave offs, etc) from coaches, bench personnel, fans, etc during live play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by All_Heart

You are assuming the officials saw the coach's actions and made a decision to not call a technical. There are some actions we don't observe because we are zeroing in on a potential problem area. This is the case with this play with players going to the ground. Unless we start going to the monitor to review all actions on the sideline it is not always "easy" to see the actions (jumping, wave offs, etc) from coaches, bench personnel, fans, etc during live play.

You don't think that the new Lead saw the coach throw her tantrum?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You don't think that the new Lead saw the coach throw her tantrum?

walt said the R talked to the coach during the timeout so yes, I would say the crew definitely knew the coach did something.

[walt]

Originally Posted by AremRed

walt said the R talked to the coach during the timeout so yes, I would say the crew definitely knew the coach did something.

She came out to the floor and waved him over. The R went over to her and she calmly pointed down the floor toward where the play occurred. The R is the Old Lead/New Trail in the video. They talked. She nodded. Gave him the tap on the back and walked away with no other reaction. She may not have liked the explanation but she let it go. The crew looked like they were waiting to talk to her anyway during the timeout and as soon as she made her move, the R made his.