Foul or no foul?

[tbonezone]

Look, the dunk call is usually a 50-50 call, I could easily see it being called either way. But half the internet is acting like it was a sure fire, can't-miss call, which I think is stupid. If you watch it live, it was really hard to tell, and even with people slowing it down significantly, it still isn't clear. Given how close it was, I would prefer they don't call it, like they did.

i'd agree here. 50/50. looks like some body contact below but the hand is all ball. it's certainly no worse than jerami getting whistled whilst sitting on the floor.

 

[SWC75]

Look, the dunk call is usually a 50-50 call, I could easily see it being called either way. But half the internet is acting like it was a sure fire, can't-miss call, which I think is stupid. If you watch it live, it was really hard to tell, and even with people slowing it down significantly, it still isn't clear. Given how close it was, I would prefer they don't call it, like they did.

Agreed. Fouls should be sure-fire, can't miss calls. Plays that could go either way should be no-calls.

 

[kuethstheman]

I also think the dunk block happened too fast for the refs to know for sure whether there was contact or not. If they'd blown the whistle, it would have been purely a guess.

 

[Cowtown]

Two points:

1. The Rule of Verticality states that contact is not the key to a foul. The key is who has the legal position. On that play, Roc is straight up and down at the moment of the block. The arms collide, but based on the Rule of Verticality, Roc is entitled to that space because he does not leave his vertical plane. Hence, Hood entering the space and causing contact does not merit a defensive foul.

2. The Parker foul is, by definition, now a foul automatically. In fact, when an elbow is swung by a player, the play is subject to review in order to determine the location of the elbow and the severity of the foul. If reviewed, Parker would not have been assessed a flagrant foul given that the elbow hit Roc's chest. However, the fact that the official didn't need to review the play means he got a good look at it and knew where the elbow landed. Hence, he knew that a foul was committed.

That said, Roc's "acting" is irrelevant to the call--the referee has to call a foul regardless of the reaction of the player receiving the elbow.

I've made my point about Parker's 5th foul, so there's no need to go over that again.

And as far as the principle of verticality goes, Christmas is entitled to the space above him right up to the ceiling, provided he jumps straight up from where he legally establishes his position. However, he didn't do that. If you watch the replay, you'll see he jumps from one side of the semi-circle, across the front of the basket and lands nearly on the other side. Thus, "jeopardy is attached" (I love L&O ). So while your understanding of the principle of verticality itself is correct, it doesn't apply there because Christmas never established position on the play - that means beat him to the spot, both feet on the floor, facing your man. Since Christmas did not have position, the ref looks for contact that creates disadvantage. And as MistakeByTheLake stated, it's difficult to tell even on the replay. So, provided it was consistent with the way the call was handled throughout the game, the no-call was a good call.

edit: oops, forgot the link:

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebask...ke-syracuse-starts-a-new-rivalry-for-the-ages

Freeze it at 2:52 and you should see what I mean.

And like I said, it's okay that we disagree. These things are all about discussion, and sometimes we even learn something through that.

 

[Cowtown]

I also think the dunk block happened too fast for the refs to know for sure whether there was contact or not. If they'd blown the whistle, it would have been purely a guess.

Fair enough. In order to call a foul, you have to see one. You're on dangerous ground if you start calling fouls based on what you think probably happened. The key to this is whether it was called consistently through the game.

 

[Coach Orange]

I've made my point about Parker's 5th foul, so there's no need to go over that again.

And as far as the principle of verticality goes, Christmas is entitled to the space above him right up to the ceiling, provided he jumps straight up from where he legally establishes his position. He didn't do that. If you watch the replay, you'll see he jumps from one side of the semi-circle, across the front of the basket and lands nearly on the other side. Thus, "jeopardy is attached" (I love L&O ). So while your understanding of the principle of verticality itself is correct, it doesn't apply there because Christmas never established position on the play - that means beat him to the spot, both feet on the floor, facing your man. Since Christmas did not have position, the ref looks for contact that creates disadvantage. And as MistakeByTheLake stated, it's difficult to tell even on the replay. So, provided it was consistent with the way the call was handled throughout the game, the no-call was a good call.

And like I said, it's okay that we disagree. These things are all about discussion, and sometimes we even learn something through that.

I agree with your "agree to disagree" mentality--that's what makes this board awesome. I respect you for your attitude on that.

That said, the explanation is not accurate. Much like block/charge calls, players can be moving in the Rule of Verticality and still establish defensive position. People often mistake the idea that a player has to be in a fixed position to draw an offensive foul, but that is not the case. The same is true here (though there would be no offensive foul here).

A player can establish position for blocking a basketball without having to be in a fixed standing position directly facing a player before going into the air. If not, 80%+ of blocks in basketball would end up a defensive foul. The question is really about who initiates contact within "the phone booth" of space.

If a referee cannot clearly establish this, he can't call a foul in this spot.

I respect if your eyes tell you it was Christmas that initiated that contact. My eyes tell me it was Hood's momentum carrying toward the basket that did.

Cheers to you for the discussion, though.

 

[SUbear]

I have never agreed more with a post here. Similarly, the foul against CJ was correctly ruled a non-flagrant foul. I really hate the trend in sports, especially college basketball, for fans to complain about the refs incessantly. It's a hard game to officiate, but in most cases these guys do a great job, and they certainly are not going to deliberately favor one team over another.

Agree it was not a flagrant 1 or 2. However the push in the back by Duke player was an intentional foul(definition a foul committed when no play on the ball is made). The push in the back was what should have been called an intentional foul. Intentional and flagrant are not the same thing.

 

[HarrisonJBounel]

Defensive play of the year, at least so far. By the defensive player of the year.

I hate to say it, but I'm seeing flashes of Alonzo Mourning in Rak. Mourning wouldn't swat shots away, he would just get a finger on them. That's all it takes.

 

[HurleyForHeisman]

Agree it was not a flagrant 1 or 2. However the push in the back by Duke player was an intentional foul(definition a foul committed when no play on the ball is made). The push in the back was what should have been called an intentional foul. Intentional and flagrant are not the same thing.

College basketball does not have the intentional foul anymore. It was replaced by the flagrant 1 foul.

 

[CuseHazard]

Wholeheartedly agree. What once worked for Karl Malone is no longer legal due to the changing rules of the game. So Rak decided to take the elbow to the chest and play on until he heard the whistle. Also something you're not used to seeing in the ACC, contact usually initiates players to turn and look at the refs, not continue playing defense...

 

[85SUAlum]

A two handed shove in the back is a straight yellow card, er, I mean flagrant foul. No attempt whatsoever on the ball. Game should have been over right there.

I agree - watching the Pitt/VA game (which Pitt blew at the end with missed shots and FT's - last time I root for Pitt), they were reviewing the video for a possible flagrant foul and they showed the rules for flagrant fouls. One of the rules listed for a flagrant 1 foul is "excessive and or unnecessary", "not a legitimate play on the ball" and "Hold or push from behind"
That sounds like it perfectly describes the shove from behind on CJ.

Oh well, at least it still worked out okay, but I think we would have had a real complaint if things had gone the other way.

 

[Cowtown]

I agree with your "agree to disagree" mentality--that's what makes this board awesome. I respect you for your attitude on that.

That said, the explanation is not accurate. Much like block/charge calls, players can be moving in the Rule of Verticality and still establish defensive position. People often mistake the idea that a player has to be in a fixed position to draw an offensive foul, but that is not the case. The same is true here (though there would be no offensive foul here).

A player can establish position for blocking a basketball without having to be in a fixed standing position directly facing a player before going into the air. If not, 80%+ of blocks in basketball would end up a defensive foul. The question is really about who initiates contact within "the phone booth" of space.

If a referee cannot clearly establish this, he can't call a foul in this spot.

I respect if your eyes tell you it was Christmas that initiated that contact. My eyes tell me it was Hood's momentum carrying toward the basket that did.

Cheers to you for the discussion, though.

Final thought: Yes, if a player first establishes legal guarding position, he may move in order to maintain it. I looked several times, and I don't see that Christmas ever met the criteria for the major premise here. Just IMHO.

Have a good Super Bowl

 

[Ghost]

Funny part of Jabari's fifth was he knew it. He turned to the ref immediately and tried to signal travel (which he also did). Amazing on replay how badly he walked on nearly every play.

I was saying that last night - Duke got away with a LOT. Parker shuffled his feet multiple times w/ no travel calls. Hood fouled out with plenty of time left in regulation when he raked CJ across the arms on that fast break. They did a slow-mo replay which made it all the more obvious. Jefferson probably should have fouled out with 15 minutes left to be honest - he undercut both Rak (on a catch in the post), and Grant on two possession in a row where they made catches inside. He also committed a pretty egregious moving screen that led to a Duke three.

I'm honestly not sure what in the world they're complaining about. I did not think Jefferson's fourth foul was a foul - that was about it as far as bad calls go.

Also, can someone please explain how Grant sitting on the ground with the ball in his hands, has Parker try to grab the ball away, and Parker then goes to the line for a shooting foul - he never even had the ball in his possession.

 

[85SUAlum]

Also, can someone please explain how Grant sitting on the ground with the ball in his hands, has Parker try to grab the ball away, and Parker then goes to the line for a shooting foul - he never even had the ball in his possession.

Was thinking the same thing during the game - wasn't sure where the foul was in the first place, but really couldn't figure out how in any way it was a shooting foul.

 

[Coach Orange]

Final thought: Yes, if a player first establishes legal guarding position, he may move in order to maintain it. I looked several times, and I don't see that Christmas ever met the criteria for the major premise here. Just IMHO.

Have a good Super Bowl

You too, Cow. I really enjoy your posts, and I look forward to more conversations in the future.

 

[samspann1]

Funny part of Jabari's fifth was he knew it. He turned to the ref immediately and tried to signal travel (which he also did). Amazing on replay how badly he walked on nearly every play.

Parker had a guilty conscience on that play.

And yes, he and Cook were guilty of countless uncalled travels yesterday.

 

[Cowtown]

This is a good thread, and precisely how these "forum thingys" should work.

Allow me to offer that there is nothing more difficult to do in sport than to ref basketball. That's why I do it, the difficulty is certainly the hook. The money has nothing to do with it. And trying not sound arrogant, there really is a reward in knowing you can do something reasonably well that most can't do at all. I encourage anyone and everyone to give it a try. You may decide you like it and stay with it, or you may find it's not for you. Either way, you're going to learn more about basketball than you ever thought imaginable, and you'll likely never see a game the same way again.

Go for it. And as always, LGO!

 

[Coach Orange]

This is a good thread, and precisely how these "forum thingys" should work.

Allow me to offer that there is nothing more difficult to do in sport than to ref basketball. That's why I do it, the difficulty is certainly the hook. The money has nothing to do with it. And trying not sound arrogant, there really is a reward in knowing you can do something reasonably well that most can't do at all. I encourage anyone and everyone to give it a try. You may decide you like it and stay with it, or you may find it's not for you. Either way, you're going to learn more about basketball than you ever thought imaginable, and you'll likely never see a game the same way again.

Go for it. And as always, LGO!

Well said. As a coach, I have great respect for any person that has to officiate any game. Not as easy as we all want to make it out to be. I have never met an official that doesn't work hard at the craft, so they deserve credit for the job they do.

 

[Coach Orange]

Hey Cowtown, quick question:

Do you think the fact that you're a ref and I'm a coach has anything to do with why we see the interpretation of the rules slightly differently?

 

[SoBeCuse]

Rak was awesome yesterday. Whole team was. Wow! Just re-watched the game for the second time. Bravo guys!

 

[Pat Kelly]

I hate having to talk about this crap, but there are some really uneducated fans out there in regards to what is and is not a foul in college basketball.

Jabari Parker's elbow to Rak = foul. Yes, Rak flailed, but you cannot lead with your elbow to clear out a player. It's in the rules. Was it a foul 10 years ago? No. Is it a foul now? Yes. Rak had established position, and Parker intiated contact with his elbow. If Rak's arm had been up and it had hit his chest first, would that have made it "look" more like a foul? It's a foul either way. If Rak had flopped after being hit, and fell over I think Duke fans would have thought it was a foul, since they're so used to that.

Amile Jefferson's 4th foul = yes, it is a foul. It's a ticky tack one, but by the letter of the law it's a foul. Do they always call that? No they don't, so I could see being upset.

Rak's block of Hood = NOT A FOUL. Folks, this is simple. He got the ball before Hood's momentum took him into Rak. Ball before incidental contact means no foul. Here's a screen cap I took that shows it's not a foul. Their arms are clearly separated when Rak gets his hand on the ball:

View attachment 7403

Finally -- to really put this to bed. At 14:57 in the second half Jabari Parker gets the ball on the break, makes a nice move to the hoop and is blocked by Rak. It's essentially the SAME EXACT PLAY as the one above. Rak got ball and then they hit arms (momentum and all that). It was not a foul, and Dukie V. actually praised the play by Rak.

If I can find that play I will edit this post with a screen cap to show the play. Point is, they don't call that if you have made the basketball play before there is contact.

This was a GREAT college basketball game, and using a non-foul at the end of the game to complain about being robbed, or for some so-called Syracuse fans to claim that the refs were in our pocket last night sullies how good the game actually was.

IT WASN'T A FOUL. You know how I know you don't know basketball? When you complain about what an awful foul that was.

Either way, should've been a T when CJ was tackled. It all evens out

 

[AZOrange]

Parker had a guilty conscience on that play.

And yes, he and Cook were guilty of countless uncalled travels yesterday.

Sulaimon did it a bunch at the top of the key on their first moves too. Looked like a spaz. Also, have we gotten a moving screen call up top all year?

 

[OrangeSky]

Just sayin-
I am really enjoying this thread.

Thanks to all!

 

[Cowtown]

Hey Cowtown, quick question:

Do you think the fact that you're a ref and I'm a coach has anything to do with why we see the interpretation of the rules slightly differently?

Probably to a certain extent, for by definition a ref approaches a call from a neutral position. Let me say, though, I reffed for 15 years, then became a teacher and coached at my HS for 15 years, both boys and girls. As a coach, knowledge of the rules made me a better coach, and I knew better what to talk to refs about, and also what not to pursue. I never said, "I'm also a referee" (that's like telling a cop you're a lawyer, lol!) I was just able to let 'em know by the type of questions I'd ask that I knew something about what's going on. The other thing that's good is that after having been in a coach's shoes for a while, and knowing a little more about kids, I'm able to deal with them both a lot better. When I retired from teaching (& coaching), I went back to reffing for exercise and to stay connected with the game. But I also told the commissioner I was only interested in HS, and not in the politics attendant to working my way back up the college list. So in the 5 years since going back to the whistle, there's no pressure now, and I smile a lot & laugh some, too.

 

[SUbear]

College basketball does not have the intentional foul anymore. It was replaced by the flagrant 1 foul.

Okay, I appreciate I was incorrect, but in that case the rule states a push in the back with no play on the ball is a flagrant 1. Duke player shoved CJ in the back pushing him into the other Duke player, and that by definition is flagrant 1.