Duke/Notre Dame (Video)

[deecee]

1. travel
2. PC
3. No travel, yes foul
4. flop and No call
5. good screen
6. no call

[griblets]

Originally Posted by deecee

4. flop and No call

Here we go again with the flop nonsense.

If that's not displacement, nothing is.

[Raymond]

1) barely can see what happened. Definitely nothing to learn from this play

2) what are we debating on this play?

3) ??? I see a POE foul.

4) PC followed by a travel.

5) I think the official guessed on this play based on the embellishment of the player who was screened.

6) I don't think the official sees the whole play and the defender embellishes contact.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by griblets

Here we go again with the flop nonsense.

If that's not displacement, nothing is.

The angle the offensive player was moving and where the defender was does not explain the level of contact. The defender was also moving back and I don't see that as a PC foul. Contact was minimal its a nocall, and embellishment by the defender.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by deecee

The angle the offensive player was moving and where the defender was does not explain the level of contact. The defender was also moving back and I don't see that as a PC foul. Contact was minimal its a nocall, and embellishment by the defender.

This is not minimal contact nor embellishment. The defender's body changes direction while his feet are off the ground when contact occurs. It is not possible to change body direction while airborne without application of an external force. See video around the 0:25 mark for the defender's feet, and then 0:34 for the external force, W15's right shoulder in the sternum of the defender as W15 jumps into the defender.

Play 1: Can't tell. Probably held ball or nothing.

Play 2: Block at that level.

Play 3: No travel, foul.

Play 4: Offensive foul

Play 5: Nothing

Play 6: Offensive foul

[deecee]

That contact is not a PC, no matter how many times I watch it. The offensive player is moving east/west and the defender is not. The onus of that contact is on the defense. I have a no call. Travel, maybe. In real life I may not see that travel.

[Camron Rust]

1. Inconclusive. I can't see with high certainty in the video how much, if any, the defender prevented the release. It really needed a view from a different angle to be sure.
2. PC...defender was legal long before contact, shooter when through him
3. Seems like a basic handcheck to me
4. Block, defender moving into the path of an airborne opponent and toward white at the time of contact. Even if it was somewhat backward, the airborne component of the play prevents the defender from moving into his path at that time. It was a travel, but I'm not going with that since the contact may have contributed to the travel. Must go with the foul. No shot since it occurred before the shooter was on the way up for a shot.
5. Fooled the referee....no foul occurred.
6. Holding foul on the defender....which caused the reaction from the offensive player which drew the offensive foul call. No call OK but NOT an offensive foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

... Travel, maybe. In real life I may not see that travel.

Why not? You can't determine his pivot foot?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why not? You can't determine his pivot foot?

It's a tough one with the potential contact, the gathering. It's a very quick potential travel, not very black/white that's why.

[ballgame99]

1) no way to know without closer angle, but looks like a travel
2) again, bad angle but looks like a block
3) ?? not sure what we are even talking about
4) PC, defender has LGP and moves to maintain it, offensive player goes through his chest. Followed by a travel
5) no call.
6) this is not a good call. its a no call.

[Raymond]

I know after seeing plenty of plays this year where players (mainly defenders) are embellishing the amount of contact (or straight up faking being fouled), this off-season I'm going to be working on seeing entire plays before putting whistles on them.

[MathReferee]

Am I the only one that sees the screen in #5 as illegal for not respecting the time and distance principle?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by MathReferee

Am I the only one that sees the screen in #5 as illegal for not respecting the time and distance principle?

Huh? this is not an off ball blind side screen.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by MathReferee

Am I the only one that sees the screen in #5 as illegal for not respecting the time and distance principle?

You are not. I agree that time and distance was not allowed, thus the screen is illegal. I thought it was an excellent call.

Originally Posted by deecee

Huh? this is not an off ball blind side screen.

I don't see anything in Rule 4-40 (NFHS) that distinguishes screens between "off ball" and "on ball."