Wisconsin-Arizona Player Control Foul (Video)

[Adam]

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".

[JetMetFan]

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.

Originally Posted by AremRed

"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.

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.

[rockyroad]

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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."

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.

[canuckrefguy]

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.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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.

[Raymond]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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".

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Raymond]

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