Wisconsin-Arizona Player Control Foul (Video)

[blindzebra]

You can see Johnson's head move after the defender hit him, to me that makes it far from marginal. The push off looked worse than it was because the defender was off balance and stumbled.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

You can see Johnson's head move after the defender hit him, to me that makes it far from marginal. The push off looked worse than it was because the defender was off balance and stumbled.

Indeed.

There is a pretty clear blocking foul there. Now, I don't terrible mind the idea of passing on it and letting it play out in that situation.

But I am at a loss as to how you pass on contact on a dribbler going to the basket, then nail the dribbler for an offensive foul that is almost certainly in response to the initial illegal contact.

The push off absent the contact would be a great, GREAT call. Ignoring the defensive foul, then calling the offensive in that situation is baffling to me.

[Berkut]

There was another sequence earlier that was pretty bad.

Arizona had gone to the line 3 or 4 times, and Wisconsin not at all, and Bo Ryan was riding the officials pretty hard.

Next play, Kaminsky gets the ball in the post, and I think in my head "If he goes to the basket, he is getting a call here no matter what".

He turns in, hooks Aaron Gordon and shoves Gordon to the floor hard enough that Gordon stumbles and almost goes to his knees. Tweet! Blocking foul.

The contact on replay was Kaminsky's elbow into Gordon's back.

It was a bad call, and it sure seemed like it was a bad call made for a bad reason.

edit: All that being said, Arizona has nothing really to complain about. They were supposedly the best defensive team in the country, and they couldn't stop 1 player all night long no matter what they did. Kaminsky was a beast.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

You can see Johnson's head move after the defender hit him, to me that makes it far from marginal. The push off looked worse than it was because the defender was off balance and stumbled.

Everybody talks like there's more than one point of contact here. There isn't. The two players only contact each other ONCE - when the dribbler pushes off.

A split-second BEFORE the defender would have knocked him off course, the dribbler extends his arm and pushes him away. The dribbler's head moved as part of the arm motion that formed the push-off, not because of any contact by the defender.

If the dribbler just keeps going instead of pushing off - he gets a defensive foul.

But he DIDN'T just keep going. He pushed off instead.

Offensive foul.

Good call.

[APG]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Everybody talks like there's more than one point of contact here. There isn't. The two players only contact each other ONCE - when the dribbler pushes off.

I completley disagree with this...even if you want to say the defender's contact was marginal, there is contact before the push off happens. Even your stills (which fail to show the forward movement (IMO) of the defender into the dribbler) show there is contact between the two players before the push off.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I think this is an ant/elephant play. The ant is the illegal contact by the defender. The elephant is the push-off by the offensive player.

Even if this true, the ant struck first.

You said it yourself: illegal contact by the defender

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I looked at the video, looked up the definition of lateral (just to make sure I'm not crazy), looked at the video again and asked my wife to look at the video. If someone can move laterally while their body is moving in the direction they are facing, and they take one step in that direction prior to contact, then yes I agree the player was moving laterally.

This play could make the NCAA video for next season. Tough play in a tough situation.

I purposely didn't mention the official or past accomplishments as that has no bearing on a discussion about the call to me.

Very objective and fair of you. Given that you most likely know Tony from your days in the DC area, I applaud your effort to try to eliminate the personal aspect of the people involved and just examine the basketball elements of the play.
This is the manner in which all of us should be viewing these videos and refraining from leveling personal accusations against any of the officials involved. I thank Tomegun for leading us in the right direction as we strive to learn and improve ourselves. Let's do so with class.

Originally Posted by APG

I've got a foul on the defender for moving forward into the dribbler prior to the push off by the dribbler.

It is difficult for me to tell if the defender simply played strong and physical defense while both players were moving or if he created illegal contact.
I'll wait until I can watch the video on a screen bigger than 2"x3".

[fortmoney]

Originally Posted by AremRed

twocentsworth said no such thing. He never explicitly stated, nor did he imply that Tony Green purposely ignored a timeout request. Let's take a quick look at what twocentsworth did say, just so we are clear:

"Tony Greene is the official who ran directly I front of Roy Williams who was signaling and yelling for a timeout"

Verdict: FACTUAL. That actually happened. Tony Greene ran in front of Roy Williams who was signalling and yelling for a timeout. Not sure how this implies Greene purposely ignored Williams.

"....AND DID NOTHING."

Verdict: FACTUAL. Tony Greene did nothing. That also actually happened. He didn't realize Williams was calling a timeout until it was too late. Still not sure how this implies Greene purposefully ignored the timeout request.

"Simply put, Tony has not had a season worthy of a Final Four assignment (or Elite Eight, for that matter)."

Verdict: Opinion. twocentsworth is entitled to his opinion about the year Greene had, but this is still not an indication that Greene purposefully ignored a timeout request.



From what I can see, twocentsworth doesn't have anything personal against Tony Greene. He made factual statements about what actually happened. It was you who introduced this "personal" spin.

He started a thread last night titled "crazy Tony strikes again" that got deleted due to its attack of a personal nature on green

[hbk314]

To be fair, the ridiculously lengthy review the followed the ensuing inbound play made up for any injustice here.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by hbk314

To be fair, the ridiculously lengthy review the followed the ensuing inbound play made up for any injustice here.

In the spirit of apples and oranges, what does one have to do with the other?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

In the spirit of apples and oranges, what does one have to do with the other?

Nothing. I didn't mean to suggest they were connected.

[BryanV21]

1. We seem to be split on whether the initial contact by the defender should have been called. Personally, I would have passed on that as it was marginal and didn't lead to an advantage, which is proven by the fact that the dribbler was still able to drive to the basket on his original path.

2. We all seem to agree that the dribbler pushed off to create space for the shot. No further comment needed.

Looking at those two facts I think it's safe to say that this was a good call. Seeing as how there are many officials out there that are afraid of making any call in a situation such as this, I have to commend Mr. Greene for making the right decision.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Even if this true, the ant struck first.

Doesn't matter. Even if the ant is technically correct, the elephant is the better call.

Originally Posted by just another ref

You said it yourself: illegal contact by the defender

I will clarify: it could have been illegal contact by the defender. We can't know for sure, cuz the offensive player decided to shove the defender out of the way with his forearm.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Doesn't matter. Even if the ant is technically correct, the elephant is the better call.



I will clarify: it could have been illegal contact by the defender. We can't know for sure, cuz the offensive player decided to shove the defender out of the way with his forearm.

1. There it is again, technically correct. I don't know what that means.
2. The shove doesn't keep the first contact from being illegal.

Originally Posted by just another ref

1. There it is again, technically correct. I don't know what that means.
2. The shove doesn't keep the first contact from being illegal.

"Technically correct" because we have the benefit of slow-motion and multiple replay angles. The official had one look at the play and I felt chose the obvious foul....whereas the initial contact by the defender less obvious.

Nope, but we are not really in the business of splitting hairs. The defender could have continued moving into the dribbler and created a foul -- we can't know because the offensive player negated that with his foul.

This is an extreme-ish theory I hold and I don't expect you to understand or accept it.