The Dayton no-call (video)

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

I'm good with the no-call also, but I think it's funny someone said it would have been the worst call of the year.

We (officials) need to be able to explain why the contact was not a foul if asked by an observer or a supervisor. We can't just say, "I had nothing".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm good with the no-call also, but I think it's funny someone said it would have been the worst call of the year.

We (officials) need to be able to explain why the contact was not a foul if asked by an observer or a supervisor. We can't just say, "I had nothing".

I agree. This probably wouldn't have even been the worst call of the 2nd half, and I say that without having seen any of the game.

[twocentsworth]

The mistake that was made was NOT putting Jamie Luckie, Ed Corbett, and Bryan Kersey on this game. U of Dayton playing an NCAA tourney game IN Dayton?....needed 3 guys that would call a foul and not be influenced by the environment.

That was a foul. Defender was NOT vertical (check out his arms stretched out towards the shooter that made contact w/ the shooter). Boise St. deserved a better whistle than they got on that play.

[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.