UNC/Duke (Video)

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was that very same camera angle that confirmed it was a foul for me....the backside of the defenders triceps comes down on the arm of the shooter.

Good catch. I did not see that contact until you mentioned it.

[so cal lurker]

[QUOTE=Pantherdreams;955569]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Moving backwards and leaning backwards are two different things. QUOTE]

I don't think they are in this context.

If the player had established LGP but leaned forward outside their LGP to initate contact with a shooter we would argue he moved into the shooter.

If they player in LGP wishes to lean backward to protect themselves or to move away from the contact they should get the same application of "move".

It doesn't make sense to say" You can't move into the shooter, so no leaning forward because you are moving into them but also say, you can move backwards but no leaning away from them because leaning is not moving.

I *suspect* that the reasoning is something along the lines of the following: Starting to fall back is faking a foul before it happens and makes refs look bad. So we're going to punish that faking by saying once you start faking it, you're no longer in LGP because you aren't guarding any more you're just trying to make me look bad.

[Pantherdreams]

[QUOTE=so cal lurker;955575]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I *suspect* that the reasoning is something along the lines of the following: Starting to fall back is faking a foul before it happens and makes refs look bad. So we're going to punish that faking by saying once you start faking it, you're no longer in LGP because you aren't guarding any more you're just trying to make me look bad.

I don't agree with that either, but if that is your rationale then call the T for faking being fouled. Problem is faking being fouled requires you to believe the only reason they would fall/lean is gain an advantage. You are basically risking T'ing a kid up for being a pu$$y or concussion prone. Any number of legal reasons to protect yourself. Which I assume is why they won't call the T because they can't confirm it, and don't want to deal with the fall out so they cal blocks (make up rules) in hopes the player will stop doing it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It was that very same camera angle that confirmed it was a foul for me....the backside of the defenders triceps comes down on the arm of the shooter.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Good catch. I did not see that contact until you mentioned it.

I have that as incidental contact. I called a foul on a similar play at the end of a game recently and I have wanted that call back after seeing some (poor) video of the play.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have that as incidental contact. I called a foul on a similar play at the end of a game recently and I have wanted that call back after seeing some (poor) video of the play.

That contact occurs just prior to him blocking the ball and impacts the shooter enough that a foul is justified.

I would not argue had it been a no call though.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=Pantherdreams;955577]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I don't agree with that either, but if that is your rationale then call the T for faking being fouled.

Is that allowed in NCAAM? It's specifically NOT allowed in NCAAW. (It's different from HS)

[johnny d]

[QUOTE=Pantherdreams;955577]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I don't agree with that either, but if that is your rationale then call the T for faking being fouled. Problem is faking being fouled requires you to believe the only reason they would fall/lean is gain an advantage. You are basically risking T'ing a kid up for being a pu$$y or concussion prone. Any number of legal reasons to protect yourself. Which I assume is why they won't call the T because they can't confirm it, and don't want to deal with the fall out so they cal blocks (make up rules) in hopes the player will stop doing it.

Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I really don't care what the reason or reasons are for calling it a particular way. The only thing that concerns me, especially at the NCAA level, is that I officiate these plays how every coordinator I have ever worked for expects me to call them, so that I continue to get games. Outside of that, it is just mental gymnastics that I don't have the time or energy to waste.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

That contact occurs just prior to him blocking the ball and impacts the shooter enough that a foul is justified.

I would not argue had it been a no call though.

That's very similar to the play I had, except in my case on defender got all ball causing a double clutch, then the other defender got him across the forearm.

I'm still torn on that play.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have that as incidental contact. I called a foul on a similar play at the end of a game recently and I have wanted that call back after seeing some (poor) video of the play.

Smacking the arm of a shooter that hasn't released the ball is incidental contact?

I might agree if it was the off arm but the ball is in both hands and without it, he can't even get to the ball (which he barely touched). I don't know how that can be incidental even under the most liberal application of the concept.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Smacking the arm of a shooter that hasn't released the ball is incidental contact?

I might agree if it was the off arm but the ball is in both hands and without it, he can't even get to the ball (which he barely touched). I don't know how that can be incidental even under the most liberal application of the concept.

How tall was the shooter? I've learned in my son's middle school games that the general rule is a player who is 6" or more shorter than the shooter is allowed to slap the arm because otherwise it isn't fair since he's not tall enough to reach the ball. (Can you tell my son is the tall kid?)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Smacking the arm of a shooter that hasn't released the ball is incidental contact?

I might agree if it was the off arm but the ball is in both hands and without it, he can't even get to the ball (which he barely touched). I don't know how that can be incidental even under the most liberal application of the concept.

Smacking? With his tricep? I think you have me beat with liberal interpretation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Smacking? With his tricep? I think you have me beat with liberal interpretation.

It is there in the video whether you choose to see it or not. The official on the floor saw it and called it.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is there in the video whether you choose to see it or not. The official on the floor saw it and called it.

I doubt that is what the official saw and why he called the foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is there in the video whether you choose to see it or not. The official on the floor saw it and called it.

You don't why the official called the foul, unless you have talked to him about the call. Additionally, unless you have spoken to this official, you have no idea what his feelings were about the call after he reviewed the video. And to say that contact was a "smack" is being less than honest, or a prime example of hyperbole.

But it is most definitely arrogant of you to say I choose not to see it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

... to say that contact was a "smack" is being less than honest, or an prime example of hyperbole.

Or, it could be a prime example of onomatopoeia.