Looking at the defender's feet in frame-by-frame, it really looks to me like he's moving towards the end line with each step, and not towards the dribbler. The dribbler is closing the distance, but that doesn't mean the defender is moving "towards the dribbler".

I'll say it again: "Technically" as we tend to use it here means "yes it happened - foul/violation - but I don't want to call it."

I disagree regarding the use of slow motion and replay angles. I think we were all able to see contact in real time.

13:20 in UConn/Mich. St...Napier driving for UConn and there is some contact out high and his head whips around. No whistle there but fouled as he shoots... The replay shown that there was hardly any contact at all up high, and he just throws his head around trying to get a call. So basing a call on the offensive players head moving can be a tricky proposition.

A foul/violation happened. That statement seems to have very little margin for error.

I don't want to call (the foul or violation which just happened.)

I can't think of any way to justify this. Certainly not because a more obvious foul/violation happened afterward.

The debate just goes to show how close the call was; literally a 50/50, probably as close as you can get on that specific type of play.

OK, if we assume that is correct...are we really saying we should be making 50-50 calls in that situation?

I've always been told that you have to have the nuts to make the call at the end of the game, but you also have to have the discretion to make damn sure it is a 100% call when you do make it.

Seems a pretty brutal move to take a possession away at the end of a game like this on a 50-50 call.

I wasn't on the floor of course, but my initial reaction when the whistle blew was "Wow, that was kind of a weak block to call...wait, he called OFFENSIVE???" "He must have seen something I did not to make that call".

Then after replay, when I saw everything he saw, I was even more stunned that he pulled that call out in that situation. I think after replay it was simply wrong, and in full speed, it looked even worse.

Disagree completely with such a brutal assessment. Like I said, the variety of views shows how close it was.

But that is my point - if it is such a close or marginal call that even after replay the best you can say is that maybe, just maybe, there is a 50-50 chance that it was the right call...

then I don't think it is a good call, especially in that situation. You basically eliminated a teams chance to win the game on that play on a "Gee, maybe it was a foul....maybe..." call. And on an offensive foul to boot.

I have the defender initiating the contact, so if I have a whistle, it's going to be a block early. If I don't put a whistle on that, I'm not calling a PC on A1 for the subsequent push-off.

That's a really poor argument.
You can't justify not penalizing an act which is clearly illegal because you either couldn't determine the legality of an action which preceeded it or simply failed to properly penalize an earlier action.

If the contact did not displace the dribbler, then it is not a foul. The only displacement in this play is when the dribbler/shooter, extended his arm. If he does not do that, then it might be easier to call a foul on the defender. Then again, that is if you believe the defender was not in a legal position. You can certainly argue that was the case.

Peace

You might want to watch it again. He started about 4-5 feet inside the lane line extended and moved towards and to the lane line that the dribbler was driving down (he even stepped on the lane line) and then was pushed back to a spot about 4 feet inside the lane.

I still don't think he fouled, however. His position wasn't legal. He was no longer in the path of the dribbler and moved into the dribbler's side, but he didn't reroute, impede, displace, or dislodge the dribbler (or affect his RSBQ if you prefer those attributes). There was no advantage gained by the contact.

Unlike the defender's contact, the dribbler's contact created a clear advantage...space to shoot that he wouldn't have otherwise had.

Yes I can, because I should have penalized the initial illegal contact by the defender. Why would it be more egregious to not penalize A1's actions?

It's not like we're talking about acts that happened 10 seconds apart or on separate plays. There's a body bump followed immediately by a push-off. Put your whistle on the initial illegal act.

That body bump is a foul on every single NCAA-Men's video John Adams has put out this season.

Question: per NCAA directives, would the contact by the defender be a foul on its own? Tough to get a true answer since we know the situation and entire play, but it is a good question.

Tom, IMO that contact has been emphasized as a foul by the NCAA all year.