The Dayton no-call (video)
 

On first viewing I liked the no call, but from the opposite baseline verticality was definitely an issue. Thoughts?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hxbH9-ITbWg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Haven't looked at the video yet, but is it from the last shot of the game? If so, there is definitely a POV aspect to this play.

Would this be a foul at any other point in the game? If a foul is call, can it be defended? Does the NCAA want this fouled called?

Looks like a good no call. The defender landed back and had legal position and then the offensive player jumped into him. Didn't look like when the contact happened the defender was moving forward at all.

I go with no call.

Another interesting play at about the 9:55 mark of the first half.

Higgins is lead and has a bobble on the play. Trail comes in with a travel after you can clearly see Higgins giving the bobble signal.

I do not have a travel because possession was never gained. You cannot travel when no possession of the ball is established.

Thought this play may bring up some different opinions. Oh to be a fly on the wall during that halftime debriefing.

Why? Do you think there is going to be some big argument over the play.

In all of my years of officiating I have only been in the locker room twice for some sort of major disturbance. One time it involved an official at halftime who was just a straight up a$$-hole. I let him ramble on without responding. In 2nd half his arrogant a$$ caused a correctable error situation, so karma got its revenge. The other time was after a game and involved 2 guys who I don't think like each other very much.

I'm always bewildered when folks make comments like there is going to be some sort of big argument in the locker room over a call. We're frickin' grown ups, we better be able to calmly and candidly discuss plays without personally attacking someone and without taking it personally.

I agreed with the no call when it happened and upon replay. Defender did jump towards the shooter but landed and stopped before the shooter jumped into him. The shooter should have just shot the ball first and hoped for the foul second instead of playing for the foul by pretending to shoot.

I don't think the debate is about B1 spot on the floor because he clearly landed and stayed in that spot. The debate is about the contact with the arms. Was B1 vertical? Was there illegal contact from his right arm? Was A1 responsible for any such contact?

I have a no-call here. I felt that way last night and I can live with that when the shooter throws himself into the defender. I also think the defender landed and then basically was vertical. Again the benefit of the doubt in live time is going to the defender in this case.

Peace

No call when I saw it live and on the replay. Shooter lunges forward to try to manufacture a foul. Defender is slightly less than vertical (on the floor) but did not create the contact. I HATE when similar plays are rewarded with a foul.

Exactly. I had the same thing happen in a playoff game. I saw a bobble, gave a bobble signal, partner called a travel.

Made me realize I probably shouldn't have given the signal, cause I'm not going in and arguing an inadvertent whistle there as I didn't know if there was something else I didn't see.

But even if I had disagreed, there'd be no strange blowup at halftime. That has never happened in 28 years, although I've been involved in one post-game thing.

I thought this was a great no call.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought the arms were sufficiently vertical.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

This might get my vote for most ridiculous comment ever posted on this forum.

Honestly I think it was a foul. Would anyone have seen it any differently if that lack of verticality had happened in the post? Post players get away with a lot of physical play until they have lack of verticality.
Also not saying the T was straightlined cause he wasn't, but he also didn't move at all through that play to improve, which I think he could have a bit. And might that have changed how he saw the verticality.

Yeah, we agree. :)

Troll much?

@JohnHigginsHair was on the game. Doesn't get more big time than thst. Padilla's a PAC12 official and Kelly works in the ACC.

Better quality clip of play:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wtNv1DCPvPI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From that view it appears to me that the angle between the arm and the vertical of the player is about 30 degrees. Those of you who see this player as okay vertically, is that because you think the angle is less than that or because you think that amount of leaning over a shooter is okay?

The one issue I have on this play is that the trail official does not signal the 3 point try. As I said earlier, I'm okay with the no-call, but the trail official invites extra scrutiny by not signalling the 3pt try. It makes me question how engaged he was in the play.

If he had appeared more engaged and signaled the 3pt try, I would be more confident in supporting a no-call.

While the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality, you can't dismiss the fact that the shooter is clearly jumping into the defender to try and draw a foul. By calling a shooting foul here you're bailing out the shooter.

Also, if the shooter wasn't jumping into the defense to draw a foul, the contact wouldn't have happened in the first place, making the shooter at least partially at fault. Should his fault be pushed aside? I don't think so.

No call.

I'm fine with that analysis. Or at least fine enough not to wander into the weeds of it, but your at clear disagreement with a number of people on this board who say he was in his own vertical space.

I didn't not say he was or wasn't vertical. I said that "while the defender is not perfectly vertical, and may even be outside his own verticality..."

It appears to me that the contact, caused by the shooter, is on the hand of the shooter which is holding the ball. There is not enough responsibility for illegal contact by the defender to call a foul.

Oh, the defender was not vertical. But I have the shooter moving forward into his stationary arm and creating contact with an unnatural shooting motion.

It tells me he was engaged and trying to watch the whole play. He likely was focussed on deciding whether to make a call, and by the time he decided, the ball was flying OOB anyway.

And, the first point of contact appeared to be the defenders armpit area, not the arm that was over the shooter. Any contact with the lower arm was secondary at that point.

I would like to refund you a penny.

One could say that by not calling a foul, you're bailing out the defender who did not play good defense...cause honestly, the defender was not playing good defense here. He jumps at a 3 point shooter. At the point of contact, the defender is nowhere near vertical....if you want to say the contact is marginal, I can see that. But let's not act like this defender plays good defense or was anywhere near vertical.

From a former official (me) - I see a try with contact between arm of shooter and defender's arm with defender trying to contest the shot with arms forward and up (outside defender's verticality). A1 is under no obligation to avoid defender's positioning. Foul.

I think that is a great no call. I agree that this play is often called a foul, but it isn't always called a foul.

The shooter stepped into the defender and initiated contact with the arms. If the shooter went straight up with the intent of making the shot, he likely would have gotten the shot off without it being blocked.

Based on what I've heard from college officials defenders get up to 30 degrees of arm down before they are really considered to be illegal. Just a rule of thumb I've heard.

Food for thought:

NCAA 4-40-3:

(emphasis mine).

I do agree that the defender was several degrees short of fully vertical. However, did his position prevent normal movements by the shooter? Does the fact that the shooter jumped abnormally in hopes of a foul provide some amount of immunity to the defender?

I think the shooter's jump moves the threshold.

Also the replay gives us a slightly better angle on the defenders verticality than the Trails position. From his angle the defender looks more vertical than the angle we see on the second replay.

Nobody is mentioning a very important element to this situation. The offensive player won this matchup. He got the defender off his feet and out of LGP in a pretty substantial way with the pump fake. He got caught being aggressive. He was clearly beaten by the pump fake.

People can argue whether it is good basketball to reward the shooter for blatantly jumping into the defender, but when an offensive player makes a good move to eliminate LGP, he has won the matchup, and has earned the opportunity to "draw the foul". You cannot reward the defense for getting beaten, the same way you cannot allow offensive players to jump into defenders with LGP and "draw a foul". That's why this is called over and over again, even on 3-point attempts, during the regular season, despite everybody hating it. Should have been called here, too.

Except that the defender had landed and was stationary prior to A1 jumping into his arm.

The offensive player waited until the defensive player was no longer moving and, in the opinion of most posters here, sufficiently vertical. I'd suggest the offensive player waited too long or the defensive player was quick to stop his momentum.

Well stated.

There's a reason for that.

We all saw the fake draw the defense off the floor, but on this play, it didn't matter.

This was a great move to get a free, open shot. Instead, he launched into the defender and didn't hit him until the defender landed.

^^^^^This. I think he (the defender) is awfully lucky the shooter didn't go up with the shot right away.

The contact was initiated by the shooter so I'm not too concerned with verticality here. True, the defender is not vertical and if the shooter hadn't jumped into the defender the whole play changes.

You have to be concerned -- if I draw you off the floor and you're not vertical, of course I'm going to initiate contact with you. It's what good players do on a pump fake, after all. It's still a foul on the defense.

The shooter can initiate contact and still have a foul called on the defender.

Going back to the OP I'm ok with the no call here. Defense didn't do anything wrong from the stand point of impeding or hindering the shot. Offense takes a wild flailing shot, jumps into defense. Any positioning faults by defense did not impact play or result.

For the rest maybe FIBA influence has me look at this differently but just because someone is in some way not vertical or outside their space, does not mean when there is contact it has to be a foul on them.

If a defender arm's aren't vertical but the offense doesn't hit their arms or contact in incidental and unrelated to the ball I'm not calling a foul on the defense because they weren't vertical.

If a defender has their arms out in front of them as a player comes barrelling in knocking their arms out of the way and running over a legal defender. I'm not calling a hand check because the offense ran into their hands first.

Most fouls IME call themselves, sometimes in collisions require you to make determination. I don't have anything on this play.

I look at this play like this. B5 is standing in the paint motionless with his arms at a 30% angle and nobody is around him. His coach told him to just stand there and guard the paint. A1 dribbles into the paint, gets right in front of B5 and jumps up and creates contact with B5's arm, who still is standing there like a statue.