Tenn vs Michigan (Video)
 

6:57 of 1st half verticality play: a blocking foul is called on Michigan defender. What does he do wrong? Excellent TV reply too!
6:45 of 1st half Michigan player throws the ball off the backboard deliberately so that he can go get it again. Would love for the NCAA to put this in the rules video for next season and end the debate.

Huge block/charge crash at 7:02 of the 2nd half.

28.6 secs left and the crew goes to the monitor for an OOB call and gets it wrong!

No problem with the player-control foul on Tennessee with 6.0 left.

Seemed an equally huge charge with 6.0 seconds left. Looked like a good call from my LazyBoy.

I don't like the PC call. Only contact was with the legs and lower body.
Tough angle for Dave Hall. He couldn't see the left shoulder of the offensive player.

Another monitor review for OOB with 2.9 secs left.

I have no problem with the PC call. Threw his shoulder and body into a legal defender. And even IMO and embellishment, but you still should call if the contact is there. The contact was there.

Peace

I think the crew had a rough game all around. I thought two of the foul calls on Maymon (2nd and 4th...one of which the OP may be questioning), and they might have blown two different OOB video reviews.

The "big" PC at the end could've gone either way.

And FWIW, the ball stayed in bounds...so if the options are PC or no-call, the PC helped Tennessee.

The 4th foul on Maymon was harsh. Big man moving and contact is made with his chest.
Got the first one wrong, got the second one right.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JDvO9ZcWhrM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Someone posting worse video than jeremy!

Eh, its been a while between posts....

And as bad as jump stop.

wow...when I started here, video wasnt even possible....my bad

#spoiled

Thought the PC at the end was a flop.

Doesn't mean it isn't a foul
 

He may have embellished a little, but there was still contact. The mere fact that a player flops does not mean a foul/contact has not occurred. Clearly there was contact and in David Hall's judgment, the contact displaced the legal defender enough to call a foul.

No problem with this call, also wouldn't have had a problem with a no-call.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/q0WKaSdSFZo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/RF3VcagfoZg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Q5d-pXlvxcU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Sngdu1PMiiI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Agree with Nevada on the first one...defender looked entirely legal to me.

No problem with the backboard no call.

Not sure what the defender did wrong in the other block/charge. He got into the path before upward motion, well outside the RA. ???

Good charge call at the end.

Play 1: Nothing

Play 2: Cool

Play 3: Charge

Play 4: Charge

Now What Fun Would That Be ???
 

I would also love the NFHS to follow suit.

But, if they did, what would we argue about every year? We would have to come up with a new annual debatable topic. The off the backboard debate is a classic. I don't think that anything could replace that annual debate.

It's worth another look:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RF3VcagfoZg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah, some of these plays can be considered a try, but not this one. No way. No how. Not this one. Not in my game.

Full discloser, big Michigan fan here.
 

Play #1: I do not see why this was a foul. The defender had LGP and retreating and all he did was jump up backwards to defend the play. If anything that is a no call if you ask me.

Play #2: Nothing.

Play #3: Really close, but I think the defender is there. I think this rule has not been well defined IMO and these plays appear to be muddied.

Play #4: I still think this was a good call, PC and embellishment. But still a PC foul.

Peace