|
Wisconsin-Arizona Player Control Foul (Video)
Tony Greene calls a player control foul on Arizona with 3.2 seconds left in OT. Looked like a good call. Ball handler created separation with the left arm.
Second gutsy player control foul call by Greene this season. |
Great call.
Peace |
Great call if only you overlook the illegal sefensive contact that was creted by the defender moving INTO the path of the ball handler.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Btw....Tony Greene is the official who ran directly I front of Roy Williams who was signaling and yelling for a timeout ....AND DID NOTHING. Simply put, Tony has not had a season worthy of a Final Four assignment (or Elite Eight, for that matter). |
Quote:
to accuse him of purposely ignoring a timeout request - who would do that? Those games are extremely loud and with that much at stake, who wouldn't be extremely locked in to the action. We've all had those situations where we either don't hear the coach, or can't tell what he wants (yelling "side-out" or something). I'm not sure what you have against Tony personally, but he's a hell of an official. And a lot of people must agree with me, otherwise he would not be calling an elite8 game between a 1 and 2. come on, take off your tin foil hat |
Quote:
|
I would like to see the play without being critical of the official or giving the official a pass because of who he is - just look at the play for what it is. When I looked at it initially, I thought the defender was moving into the offensive player. If it happened that way, and I was the offensive player, I would push off too, especially if I needed to get such a critical shot off. However, if the defender was legal, the push off should have been called.
I think sometimes we lose site of the fact that even the best officials make mistakes. Again, I would like to see the play again, but I want to look at it for what it is. If this play was called on the defense, what would people think? If nothing was called on this play, what would people think? |
I don't understand people making a comparison of Greene's call against Syracuse to this call against Arizona. They are not similar at all, and he got both of them right. I give major props to Greene for doing his job and calling the game the same way from start to finish. I know a lot of officials that won't make that call just because time is winding down.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the defensive player does not initiate illegal contact, by rule it cannot be a defensive foul. Quote:
|
Reminder/warning:
criticizing a play is ok broadly demeaning an official and his abilities is not |
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/UWlG2S4Taug" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
After watching the replay, I see a defender with LGP moving laterally and towards the end line as the dribbler closes the gap. I like that call.
|
Quote:
This was a great call. And it's why Tony Greene has been in the national championship game three or four times. |
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. |
I've got a foul on the defender for moving forward into the dribbler prior to the push off by the dribbler.
|
Quote:
I also have continuation on the play. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The ONLY point at which there is contact between the two players:
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...l/Untitled.jpg http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5.../Untitled2.jpg http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5.../Untitled3.jpg If the dribbler continues on his path without pushing off, there is no question of a defensive foul and continuation. The problem is he doesn't do that. He pushes off BEFORE there is any illegal contact by the defender. It's a bang-bang play, and as close as it gets - but I still like the offensive foul call - whether it's Tony Greene, APG, or even TCW calling it ;) |
Quote:
|
Canuck, that isn't contact in the first pic? From the first pic to the second it looks like the defender moves laterally; this is after he moves forward into the offensive player.
I can't focus...why would a boxer lick another boxer's chest during a weigh in? |
Quote:
Like I said, bang/bang play. But I still think the right call. By the closest of margins. |
Block happened first.
The defender was draped over the offensive player to the point his arm pit was touching his head. |
This seems to be a coin toss amongst officials. For me, the coin lands on "I like the call" that was made.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
My take...defender wasn't exactly legal, BUT that contact was marginal at best, not worthy of a call. The push off was more than marginal. Good call.
|
Quote:
"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. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You said it yourself: illegal contact by the defender |
Quote:
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. Quote:
I'll wait until I can watch the video on a screen bigger than 2"x3". |
Quote:
|
To be fair, the ridiculously lengthy review the followed the ensuing inbound play made up for any injustice here.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
2. The shove doesn't keep the first contact from being illegal. |
Quote:
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. |
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".
|
Quote:
Quote:
I disagree regarding the use of slow motion and replay angles. I think we were all able to see contact in real time. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Tom, IMO that contact has been emphasized as a foul by the NCAA all year.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
That is probably the best description MD.
Peace |
It shouldn't matter what he did with his arm, he was already fouled while in the act of shooting. ;)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Shoot two shots with the lane clear, ball to the defense afterwards. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Block, before the start of the upward motion.
Followed by an offensive foul. |
Bear with me on this....I went to an NBA game last year, with arguably one of the top three guys in the NBA. He had a similar play with around 5.8 on the clock and he called a blocking foul as lead on the play, where the contact occured at the elbow. I asked him why he didn't let the play go and apply the SDF mentality. His reasoning was ( in a 1 possession game, team with ball is up one in his game) by calling foul immediately, team up 1 makes two free throws, the team down three has still has chance with 4.5 on clock. And "and 1" make it a 4pt game with two less seconds and game is essentialy over.
Had a block on this been called immediately and Arizona goes to line and makes both free throws, Wisconsin still had chance to get a darn good shot / play off on other end. I realize that the NBA would put ball in frontcourt, etc. etc. However the logic makes a hell of a lot of sense.....just food for thought !!!!! Again purists may disagree, but that school of thought will eventually trickle down to the D1...... |
Quote:
In fact I had a similar play to this with about 13 seconds left and offense down by 1. He hits both ends of 1-and-1 and other team hits a 3-pointer to win the game. Observer was happy I put a whistle on the body bump. |
BNR - Do you have an immediate from lead, when you are trained as a SDF guy on a play at the elbow. Normally you aren't thinking of making a call there or even on ball as the lead on that play.... BTW - the "outing of Foster", will cost you dinner on weekend of May 16- 18 !!!!!:D:D:D:D
|
Quote:
I was the Trail (but Lead had just rotated and I did not vacate my positioning yet), drive started at the stop of the key, curled in my direction, and bump occurred right at the elbow. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01pm. |