The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:22pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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".
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: West Orange, NJ
Posts: 2,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
"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.
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example."
"If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..."
"Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4."
"The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge)
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:47pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindzebra View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 03:14pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan View Post
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 03:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
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.
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 03:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckrefguy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 04:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkut View Post
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.
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 10:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckrefguy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:13pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Sun Mar 30, 2014 at 11:25pm.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 30, 2014, 11:52pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 31, 2014, 01:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 31, 2014, 07:45am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:58am.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 31, 2014, 11:14am
Huck Finn
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 31, 2014, 11:21am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Tom, IMO that contact has been emphasized as a foul by the NCAA all year.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oregon vs. Wisconsin missed team control foul bballref3966 Basketball 6 Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:27pm
Arizona/Arizona State Block-Charge (video) JetMetFan Basketball 11 Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:13am
Team Control Foul and Player Control The_Rookie Basketball 19 Mon Oct 29, 2012 05:03pm
Player Control or Team Control Foul The_Rookie Basketball 1 Sun Jan 16, 2011 04:19pm
Player control vs Team control foul QuebecRef87 Basketball 6 Wed Jan 26, 2005 07:42am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1