UNC/Duke (Video)

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

Or a no-call.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Or a no-call.

The point of #1 is that it's a dangerous play, and therefore you don't want players doing it. And to accomplish that a foul could be called there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

1. Still his spot and he has a legal right to move backwards.
2. I agree sometimes it minimizes contact to the point where we don't have a foul. But in that case,

we don't have a foul.

[SC Official]

1) Good call

2) Nothing. Ball was not on its way down nor was it within the cylinder. I can hardly fault the officials for that though–we all know how difficult that call is.

3) What does the defender do wrong here? That's either PC or a no-call.

4) Looks clean.

5) Again, what did the defender do wrong?

6) Crew gets the benefit of the doubt.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by jodibuck

With 29 seconds remaining in 2nd half, is this an illegal screen (mugging) by Duke's Winslow on Jones' game tying drive?

Now put yourself as the C on the play. Officiating UNC #2 defending on the drive by Duke #5. Duke #12 with a screen at the elbow on UNC #2 at the same time holding with the left arm UNC #13 on the drive by Duke #5 to the basket.

Right or wrong, the L chose to stay and not rotate. Duke #15 and UNC #3 are on the block and the L chose to stay with them (no fault in that thinking). If the L decides to rotate, it would be late and he would most likely be looking at the drive by Duke#5 and not the hold by Duke #12.

This is a tough play to officiate through the eyes of the crew on the floor but I believe the best look would've been the L if he didn't have the post players in front of him.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by letemplay

#6 I do not see a walk here. I did think it was when I saw it live (first view from TV) but not after watching the first replays last night (and even without Bilas' claim Okafor is the next Olajuwon) After his jump stop, both feet landing simultaneously, it appears to me he then pivots off his left foot, taking a step to basket and scoring. If anything was unusual about this play, possibly a carry a few dribbles before entering the paint, but can't see it clear enough.

Since he gathered and jumped on one foot is he allowed to pivot?

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Since he gathered and jumped on one foot is he allowed to pivot?

Looking at it again and seeing where/when he gathered it looks like he uses his left foot to come to a jump stop. By 4.44.2A ('11-'12CB) he cannot pivot. But he can jump off both feet for a try, just not sure that's what he did. Looks like he lifts his right foot and jumps off his left as he goes to shoot. As someone else said: splitting hairs, and with all they let go now, that seems minimal

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Looking at it again and seeing where/when he gathered it looks like he uses his left foot to come to a jump stop. By 4.44.2A ('11-'12CB) he cannot pivot. But he can jump off both feet for a try, just not sure that's what he did. Looks like he lifts his right foot and jumps off his left as he goes to shoot. As someone else said: splitting hairs, and with all they let go now, that seems minimal

Assuming your description is correct (I didn't watch the video), then why wouldn't that be legal?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by letemplay

#6 I do not see a walk here. I did think it was when I saw it live (first view from TV) but not after watching the first replays last night (and even without Bilas' claim Okafor is the next Olajuwon) After his jump stop, both feet landing simultaneously, it appears to me he then pivots off his left foot, taking a step to basket and scoring. If anything was unusual about this play, possibly a carry a few dribbles before entering the paint, but can't see it clear enough.

All good except he's not allowed to pivot after the jump stop and he did....with a large step, not a little shuffle or anything that could be considered hair splitting.

He jumped off of one foot well after catching the ball prior to the jump stop....he had it in both hands above his head before he jumped.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Not saying this is right, but I was thinking...

1. When the defender falls back early it kind of acts like an undercut of the shooter, which can be dangerous.

2. Falling back early makes the torso contact minimal, and minimal contact often doesn't result in a foul call.

So, as a result, a blocking foul on the defender should be called.

I hear this reasoning often, but as its not supported by the rules I just don't buy it. THe rules say that a player with lgp can move backwards. We are also expressly told they are alloud to protect themselves, even if this inlcludes movements that might normally be illegal (twisting or turning).

Requiring players to stand there and take "it" not only flys in the face of the rule, but in a culture much more sensitive to concussions and collisions in sport is esentially an officiating endorsement of punishing kids for not putting themselves at further risk.

If you want to no call it because the contact is now minimal and you don't feel they are disadvantaged I can live with that but calling a block is tantamount to saying I'm calling a foul because you are soft. And creates a much more physical and risky culture.

Now I'm not an NCAA officials and if my boss and colleagues all said "We are calling this block" then I would have to make that decision or judgement in that situation. In my current situation and by the standard the rules lay out. PC or no call.

[biggravy]

On the first block/charge- It doesn't look like L had a great angle, and he reached across two lines to get there. Granted, C didn't have much of an angle either. Not sure if C passed, or if he was hoping for a late whistle from L and would have come in even later with a strong whistle if L passed. Still, with L reaching across two lines and banging it out- that's how a blarge happens!

[APG]

Originally Posted by jodibuck

With 29 seconds remaining in 2nd half, is this an illegal screen (mugging) by Duke's Winslow on Jones' game tying drive?

[RefCT]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I hear this reasoning often, but as its not supported by the rules I just don't buy it. THe rules say that a player with lgp can move backwards. We are also expressly told they are alloud to protect themselves, even if this inlcludes movements that might normally be illegal (twisting or turning).

Requiring players to stand there and take "it" not only flys in the face of the rule, but in a culture much more sensitive to concussions and collisions in sport is esentially an officiating endorsement of punishing kids for not putting themselves at further risk.

If you want to no call it because the contact is now minimal and you don't feel they are disadvantaged I can live with that but calling a block is tantamount to saying I'm calling a foul because you are soft. And creates a much more physical and risky culture.

Now I'm not an NCAA officials and if my boss and colleagues all said "We are calling this block" then I would have to make that decision or judgement in that situation. In my current situation and by the standard the rules lay out. PC or no call.

We are advised to call it a block because if he starts leaning back before contact, he lost verticality and is no longer has LGP. No different than if he had his arms extended and made contact. (I didn't watch the video - I am referring to a case where they start to fall backwards without contact - not moving backwards with their feet)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jodibuck

With 29 seconds remaining in 2nd half, is this an illegal screen (mugging) by Duke's Winslow on Jones' game tying drive?

while I think a foul could have been called on the play, I find that we're usually better served if we stay away from inflammatory words such as "mugging."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RefCT

We are advised to call it a block because if he starts leaning back before contact, he lost verticality and is no longer has LGP. No different than if he had his arms extended and made contact. (I didn't watch the video - I am referring to a case where they start to fall backwards without contact - not moving backwards with their feet)

Leaning back does not cause one to lose LGP. And, no, this is not anything like extending an arm and making contact.