Wisconsin-Arizona Player Control Foul (Video)

[Raymond]

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

[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.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

Seeing the whole play is fine, but is not the whole story here. The danger, I think, is letting the second half of the play totally obliterate the first. Was the contact by the defender a foul or not? I happen to think it was. So a more obvious, "everybody in the building saw it" reaction from the dribbler shouldn't cause the first contact to be ignored.

This was like the mom with the kids in the back seat. The second hit got punished, even though it was caused by the first.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Seeing the whole play is fine, but is not the whole story here. The danger, I think, is letting the second half of the play totally obliterate the first. Was the contact by the defender a foul or not? I happen to think it was. So a more obvious, "everybody in the building saw it" reaction from the dribbler shouldn't cause the first contact to be ignored.

This was like the mom with the kids in the back seat. The second hit got punished, even though it was caused by the first.

Then the only answer is the FD foul.
Shoot two shots with the lane clear, ball to the defense afterwards.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Then the only answer is the FD foul.
Shoot two shots with the lane clear, ball to the defense afterwards.

By the letter of the law, perhaps this fits. But, for whatever reason, I just don't think you'll ever see this call made on this play. I look at it this way. Did the dribbler really gain an advantage by extending the arm? The way I see it, all he did was take back the space which was his in the first place.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By the letter of the law, perhaps this fits. But, for whatever reason, I just don't think you'll ever see this call made on this play. I look at it this way. Did the dribbler really gain an advantage by extending the arm? The way I see it, all he did was take back the space which was his in the first place.

I see the first contact as marginal...maybe a foul if it results in an advantage gained. But, it didn't result in any advantage. The dribbler continued on the same path.The dribbler doesn't have any space which is his other than that which he is occupying. The defender is allowed to take up 99.99% of the space between the players. Stopping at the point of contact and not displacing or rerouting the dribbler, he defender didn't foul. So, the space the dribbler took was the space legally obtained by the defender.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I see the first contact as marginal...maybe a foul if it results in an advantage gained. But, it didn't result in any advantage. The dribbler continued on the same path.The dribbler doesn't have any space which is his other than that which he is occupying. The defender is allowed to take up 99.99% of the space between the players. Stopping at the point of contact and not displacing or rerouting the dribbler, he defender didn't foul. So, the space the dribbler took was the space legally obtained by the defender.

Contact rocked the head of the dribbler. This is not legal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

The defender fouls him, why does it matter what the offensive player does next? Whether A1 passes he ball, shoots the ball, or pushes the defender off, the defensive foul has already occurred and you should have already determined that it is or isn't a shooting foul. Only decision left is whether or not we now have a FDF.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The defender fouls him, why does it matter what the offensive player does next? Whether A1 passes he ball, shoots the ball, or pushes the defender off, the defensive foul has already occurred and you should have already determined that it is or isn't a shooting foul. Only decision left is whether or not we now have a FDF.

Agreed. And no FDF for me. The damage is done. Contact by the defender affected the shot. He missed it. Shoot 2.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The defender fouls him, why does it matter what the offensive player does next? Whether A1 passes he ball, shoots the ball, or pushes the defender off, the defensive foul has already occurred and you should have already determined that it is or isn't a shooting foul. Only decision left is whether or not we now have a FDF.

Quit making fruit salad.