Concentration on Opening Jump (Video)

[APG]

I think this is a good clip showing why one has to have a high level of concentration even to start the game:

[crosscountry55]

I concentrated, and I didn't hear a whistle, nor did I see a foul.

But let's say a jumper did commit a PF. Offended team gets the ball, offending team gets the arrow, correct?

[Valley Man]

He held the guy with the off arm. Actually had this 2 weeks ago and U2 got it for us! Offended team got the ball. Offending team got the arrow.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

He held the guy with the off arm.

Oh yeah! Blew up the screen and took a closer look. Yup. Good catch.

I suppose in this situation if you noticed time had run off the clock, you'd put it back on.

[La Rikardo]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I concentrated, and I didn't hear a whistle, nor did I see a foul.

But let's say a jumper did commit a PF. Offended team gets the ball, offending team gets the arrow, correct?

The offended team is awarded a designated-spot throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot nearest the foul. The alternating possession arrow is set in the direction of the offending team when the ball is placed at the disposal of the thrower (NCAA 4-9.6.b for the game in OP or NFHS 4-3-3c in most of our games).

[Raymond]

Unless it is blantantly obvious, leaving that alone.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Unless it is blantantly obvious, leaving that alone.

I agree but in this case G1 prevented R1 from having any opportunity to tap the ball, and used leverage from the foul to get a better opportunity himself. So I think a foul call would be appropriate here.

[APG]

While not the exact same situation, it's still a foul during the jump ball:

[zm1283]

If I see that I'm calling it. He keeps the Red player from even attempting to tap the ball.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I agree but in this case G1 prevented R1 from having any opportunity to tap the ball, and used leverage from the foul to get a better opportunity himself. So I think a foul call would be appropriate here.

It took multiple viewings for many of us to even notice the foul. This would fall into the category of "not obvious enough to call" for me.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It took multiple viewings for many of us to even notice the foul.

Part of this is the camera motion. It zooms in too tight and then moves upward as the ball goes up, drawing your attention away from the contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Altor

Part of this is the camera motion. It zooms in too tight and then moves upward as the ball goes up, drawing your attention away from the contact.

Sort of like an official's eyes during a jump ball.

The tosser is looking up, and looking to avoid flying elbows. The U1 looking through Red 12. The U2 is observing the non-jumpers.

Gold 34's hold was subtle and quick; he released it almost immediately, even in slow motion.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It took multiple viewings for many of us to even notice the foul. This would fall into the category of "not obvious enough to call" for me.

Cross board lurker here: but since when is obviousness a factor in determining if something is a foul. This is illegal contact that gave a significant advantage so I'd imagine it should be called even if only you could see it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by youngump

Cross board lurker here: but since when is obviousness a factor in determining if something is a foul. This is illegal contact that gave a significant advantage so I'd imagine it should be called even if only you could see it?

I have college supervisors who would have an email sitting on my smartphone before halftime if I called this particular play a foul to start the game.

So yes, in this case, obviousness would definitely come into play. Right or wrong, it is reality.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by youngump

Cross board lurker here: but since when is obviousness a factor in determining if something is a foul. This is illegal contact that gave a significant advantage so I'd imagine it should be called even if only you could see it?

"Not obvious" as in "hard to see" or "hard to see clearly enough to call". Officials tend not to make calls that they aren't 100% sure about.

And if you are saying you saw it clearly enough upon the first viewing, and at real speed, then I'd have to question your honesty.