Wisconsin-Arizona Player Control Foul (Video)

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

IMO too

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

tom, imo that contact has been emphasized as a foul by the ncaa all year.

+1

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

But I did not see displacement by the defender or any RSBQ that took place on the ball handler. I saw displacement by the push off though.

And It is not a slam dunk either way. I think this is just one of those tough plays we have take place. If the Arizona player does not extend his arm, he probably gets a foul. Or at least there is a no call.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

My two cents (hopefully better than mytwocents's two cents)

This was just about to be a foul on the defender. Illegal contact was ABOUT TO happen - but it never did actually happen. The push off prevented what was likely about to be a block.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

My two cents (hopefully better than mytwocents's two cents)

This was just about to be a foul on the defender. Illegal contact was ABOUT TO happen - but it never did actually happen. The push off prevented what was likely about to be a block.

MD Longhorn:

Great observation! Too many coaches are screaming for a foul before one occurs and then the foul they think is going to occur a different presents itself. That is what happened in this play.

And this type of play happens quite frequently in all games we officiate no matter what the level. It is a good thing that we officials are paid to see the entire play and not just the first half of the play.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

That is probably the best description MD.

Peace

[Raymond]

It shouldn't matter what he did with his arm, he was already fouled while in the act of shooting.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

... It is a good thing that we officials are paid to see the entire play and not just the first half of the play.

MTD, Sr.

I think I've seen something like that written in the forum before.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It shouldn't matter what he did with his arm, he was already fouled while in the act of shooting.

Okay, I agree with you, he was fouled in the act of shooting. But this doesn't cause the ball to become dead. Does this give him a free pass with the arm. Why wouldn't this be a false double foul?

discuss

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, I agree with you, he was fouled in the act of shooting. But this doesn't cause the ball to become dead. Does this give him a free pass with the arm. Why wouldn't this be a false double foul?

discuss

I was actually considering posting the same type of question.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, I agree with you, he was fouled in the act of shooting. But this doesn't cause the ball to become dead. Does this give him a free pass with the arm. Why wouldn't this be a false double foul?

discuss

It shouldn't, but I would not want to be the first person making that call on this type of play in any area/level/league I work. Might not be right, but the accepted and expected practice is to ignore the second foul if you have called the first foul in these types of situations.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It was not a great call or a gutsy call. It was the correct call. And that is why Tony Greene was assigned to this game.

MTD, Sr.

I think it was absolutely a gutsy call. We can talk all we want about all calls being the same but the truth of the matter is that all whistles are not equal and some calls are bigger and require more fortitude than others.

As evidenced by the discussion in this thread this was a call that is subject to a lot of scrutiny with differing opinions. I applaud Greene for being convinced in what he saw and not being afraid to make what he believed was the correct call when IMO many other officials, high level officials too, would not have put air in it in that situation.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

My two cents (hopefully better than mytwocents's two cents)

This was just about to be a foul on the defender. Illegal contact was ABOUT TO happen - but it never did actually happen. The push off prevented what was likely about to be a block.

I tend to agree with this observation as well. Certainly room for debate but I liked the call for this reason.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

This is just all types of wrong.

First of all, Greene was 10 ft from the play, had a great look and HE determined it was a foul according to his judgement. And that's what he was on the floor to do. To say, "Gee maybe it was a foul" is YOUR opinion. He obviously was convinced.

Secondly, Arizona got the ball back with 2.5 seconds to play and had another chance to win the game. They didnt make the shot. It's called basketball...it happens. To say that one call eliminated a teams chance to win is almost always incorrect and here it was proven to be 100% false since they indeed had a subsequent chance to win the game. And all of that is moot anyway if you believe, as I do, that it was the correct call.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Berkut

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.

There is no doubt there is a foul to be called, the debate is whether the defense committed a foul prior to the push off. Either way, a whistle was going to come.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think I've seen something like that written in the forum before.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It shouldn't matter what he did with his arm, he was already fouled while in the act of shooting.

Apples and oranges to the play you're referring to. This play is exactly what seeing the whole play philosophy is about....whether to call a foul and, if so, who to call it on.