The Dayton no-call (video)

[CNYREF]

This is not a foul. Not a foul in 1st half or end of game. That wouldve been a travesty if it was called. IMO

[SCalScoreKeeper]

that would've been a horrible foul call.easiest no call that official had all year I'd bet.

[ColeTops25]

I watched almost all of this game. I languished threw Doug Gottlieb's constant harassment of "Higgins and his crew", and the idea that the crew was calling too many fouls, and not letting the kids play. This was a consistent theme from Mr. Gottleib throughout the game. What do you suppose his comment was after this play? "Ion, that is a foul in any gym in America!" Classic.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

That crew did an excellent job I thought.They called what needed to get called,handled their coaches pretty well and it's just a shame when announcers get all over officials like that.I'd like to see Doug put on a whistle for awhile and see how much he enjoys it lol.

[Adam]

I don't think it was a foul that should be called at any point in the game, but I wouldn't have called it a travesty if it had been called.

[scrounge]

So, just for my own understanding, help me out here - why is this one so obvious? It seemed to me to be a borderline call, ok either way. The defender does indeed get back down but his arms seem to be fairly angled towards the shooter. Yes, the shooter creates it...but isn't the arm angle close to a violation of verticality? I wouldn't like it, seems cheap for the shooter to 'buy' a foul like that, but would it have been wrong to call it?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by scrounge

So, just for my own understanding, help me out here - why is this one so obvious? It seemed to me to be a borderline call, ok either way. The defender does indeed get back down but his arms seem to be fairly angled towards the shooter. Yes, the shooter creates it...but isn't the arm angle close to a violation of verticality? I wouldn't like it, seems cheap for the shooter to 'buy' a foul like that, but would it have been wrong to call it?

You're right, it is not obvious either way. It's a play worth debating. One person has already said they would call it early in the game, but not on a last second shot. So yes, there are elements that need to be discussed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You're right, it is not obvious either way. It's a play worth debating. One person has already said they would call it early in the game, but not on a last second shot. So yes, there are elements that need to be discussed.

If I saw it clearly, I'm wouldn't call it at any point. If I got fooled on it, I'd call it. In reality, I may be more likely to get fooled on something like this early, but the shooter's lunge into the defender makes me think I'm probably not getting fooled on this live.

[jpgc99]

It must be March.

This should be called consistently whether it is the first play of the game, or the last play of the game. With that said, no play is exactly the same. This is a last second shot where the offensive player is attempting to create contact and draw a foul. That context is important and differentiates this play from plays that look similar in earlier quarters.

I do not have a foul on the defender. I would not have a foul on the defender if this exact play happened in the first half, but I doubt this exact play would happen at any other time.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by scrounge

So, just for my own understanding, help me out here - why is this one so obvious? It seemed to me to be a borderline call, ok either way. The defender does indeed get back down but his arms seem to be fairly angled towards the shooter. Yes, the shooter creates it...but isn't the arm angle close to a violation of verticality? I wouldn't like it, seems cheap for the shooter to 'buy' a foul like that, but would it have been wrong to call it?

I thought the arms were sufficiently vertical.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

I watched almost all of this game. I languished threw Doug Gottlieb's constant harassment of "Higgins and his crew", and the idea that the crew was calling too many fouls, and not letting the kids play. This was a consistent theme from Mr. Gottleib throughout the game. What do you suppose his comment was after this play? "Ion, that is a foul in any gym in America!" Classic.

What he said was this kind of play has been called a foul all year. He then said he didn't think it should be called a foul, but was being called a foul all year. I do agree with him about that. I've seen this play called a foul. Last year in the tournament Stephen F. Austin was the benefactor of a similar play that was called a foul and got a 4 point play. Not exactly the same but similar.

Originally Posted by OKREF

What he said was this kind of play has been called a foul all year. He then said he didn't think it should be called a foul, but was being called a foul all year. I do agree with him about that. I've seen this play called a foul. Last year in the tournament Stephen F. Austin was the benefactor of a similar play that was called a foul and got a 4 point play. Not exactly the same but similar.

This play was called a foul all year when it was early in the game and not down 1 point with the final shot. Whether Doug likes it or not, our threshold for fouls does go up a bit in situations like this. For that play to be a foul, the foul almost has to call itself.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by AremRed

This play was called a foul all year when it was early in the game and not down 1 point with the final shot. Whether Doug likes it or not, our threshold for fouls does go up a bit in situations like this. For that play to be a foul, the foul almost has to call itself.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't think that kind of play is a foul on the defense. The offense jumped into the defense and the defense was sufficiently vertical for me

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't think that kind of play is a foul on the defense. The offense jumped into the defense and the defense was sufficiently vertical for me

Yeah, we agree.