Why have the restricted area arc under the basket if players stepping on it can't be reviewed? | Syracusefan.com

Why have the restricted area arc under the basket if players stepping on it can't be reviewed?

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,343
Like
91,295
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...ts-marquette-golden-eagles-game-new-officials

This article by Dana O'Neil is 100% correct. College refs still have no clue how to call the block/charge. Atleast this year more refs are leaning block over charge as they were in the past. I think Kris Joseph has the NCAA unofficial record for most charger against him. Joseph didn't commit all these offensives fouls, but the college refs always used to love to call the emphatic charge call whenever they could. If we are reviewing elbows at the head, whether or not a foot was on the line they why the hell can't the referees review if a defender had a foot in the restricted area. That call could have taken a win away from Villanova if Marquette won in OT.
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
The worse part about these stories is they almost always show the review/replay from an angle that you can't interpret a damn thing. The commentators/sportscasters are always like "Well it looked to me, his feet were set, and they were in/outside the arc". But in the replay, you see everything from their knees up. You can't even see where their feet are.

But in all seriousness, the defender seemed to be outside the circle, with his feet set, just before the Nova player went up for the shot. I saw the replay all day on ESPN. He had one foot inside the circle, one out, but pulled both feet out just before the Nova player drove into him. 95% of the time that's an easy charge. Although you can't tell if his right heel is barely touching the line or not.
But I'd say it was a good call. Much better than most I've seen in the last few years
 

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,343
Like
91,295
The worse part about these stories is they almost always show the review/replay from an angle that you can't interpret a damn thing. The commentators/sportscasters are always like "Well it looked to me, his feet were set, and they were in/outside the arc". But in the replay, you see everything from their knees up. You can't even see where their feet are.

But in all seriousness, the defender seemed to be outside the circle, with his feet set, just before the Nova player went up for the shot. I saw the replay all day on ESPN. He had one foot inside the circle, one out, but pulled both feet out just before the Nova player drove into him. 95% of the time that's an easy charge. Although you can't tell if his right heel is barely touching the line or not.
But I'd say it was a good call. Much better than most I've seen in the last few years
The replay clearly showed the Marquette player's foot was on the restricted arc and it should have been a block if the ref wanted to call a foul. That is my point the other refs were out of position and because this can't be reviewed while an elbow can or a 3 pt shot it could have effected the outcome of the game. I would make any call in the last 2 minutes reviewable and then games would be reffed more cleanly. If the last 2 minutes is too subjective then just review them the entire game, but now in college basketball in the last 2 minutes refs can review out-of bounds calls and get them right so do the same for fouls around the restricted arc.
 

shandeezy7

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
12,221
Like
29,388
The worse part about these stories is they almost always show the review/replay from an angle that you can't interpret a damn thing. The commentators/sportscasters are always like "Well it looked to me, his feet were set, and they were in/outside the arc". But in the replay, you see everything from their knees up. You can't even see where their feet are.

But in all seriousness, the defender seemed to be outside the circle, with his feet set, just before the Nova player went up for the shot. I saw the replay all day on ESPN. He had one foot inside the circle, one out, but pulled both feet out just before the Nova player drove into him. 95% of the time that's an easy charge. Although you can't tell if his right heel is barely touching the line or not.
But I'd say it was a good call. Much better than most I've seen in the last few years

If his feet were moving after the Nova player had already left the floor, it doesn't matter if he pulled his feet out of the restricted area or not. That was an egregious error on the ref's part.
 

ImperialOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,146
Like
39,913
I don't understand a lot of the plays deemed non reviewable in sports. If you have video footage of it, why can't it be reviewed?

I'm still trying to figure out why Navarro Bowman left his knee on the field to recover a fumble that he didn't get to keep.
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
When I pause the video, I believe "clearly" isn't even a possibility. His right foot seems to be outside the arc, possibly the end of his heel on the line but you can still barely see the line behind his heel. That much I can say for fact, but that's about it. You can see the line behind his heel on the questionable foot. Problem is, other players are in the way, as usual, another terrible replay/angle. The Nova player is blocking the angle at the moment you really need to see unfortunately.

But agreed, it should definitely be reviewable, just like out of bounds calls in the final 2 minutes. But if I was a ref, and it was based on the angle they show us, I would have called that a charge, no question. He didn't slide over or move up or anything, just planted the second foot just in time. Still would have been easier if the Nova player wasn't in the way
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
If his feet were moving after the Nova player had already left the floor, it doesn't matter if he pulled his feet out of the restricted area or not. That was an egregious error on the ref's part.
That's the point. His feet moved before the player left the ground, as I stated. He was set just before the Nova player went up for the shot. The Nova player was in his driving form, but he did not yet leave the ground. That's always gonna be a charge. The Nova player took that long last stride to jump off his foot, which gave the defender enough time to set his feet before the jump.
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
I really don't see the difference between any of the line reviews though. Why review a 3pter that you couldn't tell whether or not a player had their foot on the line, but not a block/charge call is the real question. You review a shot like that no matter what time it happened in the game, just to make sure you get the right amount of points, whether it being a 2 or a 3. Doesn't have to be last 2 minutes like other reviews. Should be the same in these situations with a foul regarding the restricted area.
 

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,343
Like
91,295
Congratulations, you are now the first person to ever say that sentence.
I call it the way I see it. If someone is right I say it even if I don't agree them a majority of the time. Dana O'Neil, Myron Metcalf, and Eamon Brennan have all been called out by me in the past as being hacks, but this article articulates a fatal flaw in college basketball officiating. I will give her credit, but like the old saying even a broken clock is right 2 times a day. If out-of bounds calls can be reviewed in the last 2 minutes a simple rule change for next year is any call in the last 2 minutes is reviewable.
 

Bayside44

Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,869
Like
26,027
Reviewing fouls and possessions are two different things. Fouls are subjective to a point. If the block / charge didn't get so bastardized over the years (it's entitlement of space after all) we would not need that silly arc.
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
Reviewing fouls and possessions are two different things. Fouls are subjective to a point. If the block / charge didn't get so bastardized over the years (it's entitlement of space after all) we would not need that silly arc.
Seriously. But honestly, I don't see why it should really matter whether a player is outside a circle or not. I don't know why there's even an arc. If he's not moving, and his hands are straight up, the defense shouldn't be called for a foul. It's not like it's going to change the fact that he can't goaltend. It's not like a defender has to have his feet inside the 3pt line when a player takes a 3pter. If the player on offense wants to take the chance to get blocked, let him.
 

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,343
Like
91,295
Reviewing fouls and possessions are two different things. Fouls are subjective to a point. If the block / charge didn't get so bastardized over the years (it's entitlement of space after all) we would not need that silly arc.
How is it subjective if the video shows that the player had a foot on the restricted area and the referee calls an offensive foul? Calls are changed all the time. I agree block/charge has become bastardized over the years, but all I am asking for is the correct call to be made. If a defender is on the arc its supposed to be an a block.
 

OttoinGrotto

2020-21 Iggy Award Winner 3 Point Shooting %
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
51,992
Like
139,440
I don't understand a lot of the plays deemed non reviewable in sports. If you have video footage of it, why can't it be reviewed?
Because people want to preserve "the human element," and mistakenly believe that it should extend to interpretation and execution of the rule book, and not reside solely with differences in the attributes and performances of the athletes.
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
How is it subjective if the video shows that the player had a foot on the restricted area and the referee calls an offensive foul? Calls are changed all the time. I agree block/charge has become bastardized over the years, but all I am asking for is the correct call to be made. If a defender is on the arc its supposed to be an a block.
They wouldn't have overturned that call anyways. At least not on the replay they show. You need indisputable evidence. I paused the video dozens of times. You can see the bright white line behind his feet before the player goes up, but a split second later a Nova player's legs get in the way as his teammate goes in the air. His legs are blocking the guys feet at the last second, so they wouldn't be able to tell if his heel was on the line or not. It's just like football. No indisputable evidence = call stays.
 

Bayside44

Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,869
Like
26,027
I guess I just think it's dumb so I am not upset about it. These guys are 7 feet tall...you can have a heel on the arc and the other foot on the block. Empower these guys to call it like it was 25 years ago and this wouldn't be an issue.
 

dasher

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
38,231
Like
92,860
The worse part about these stories is they almost always show the review/replay from an angle that you can't interpret a damn thing. The commentators/sportscasters are always like "Well it looked to me, his feet were set, and they were in/outside the arc". But in the replay, you see everything from their knees up. You can't even see where their feet are.

But in all seriousness, the defender seemed to be outside the circle, with his feet set, just before the Nova player went up for the shot. I saw the replay all day on ESPN. He had one foot inside the circle, one out, but pulled both feet out just before the Nova player drove into him. 95% of the time that's an easy charge. Although you can't tell if his right heel is barely touching the line or not.
But I'd say it was a good call. Much better than most I've seen in the last few years
It was a terrible call. He clearly had his foot in the zone. And to prove it, not that it wasn't obvious, Mike Stevens made the call.
 

AZOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
17,601
Like
31,142
I will say that at least in all the games I've seen the refs seem to be calling more blocks than charges
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
I guess I just think it's dumb so I am not upset about it. These guys are 7 feet tall...you can have a heel on the arc and the other foot on the block. Empower these guys to call it like it was 25 years ago and this wouldn't be an issue.
Agreed. Can you imagine trying to get your size 22 shoe ahead of a stupid line? Your foot is probably there, but not the heel of your shoe.

I say get rid of the arc. If the offensive player really wants to drive into a defender that's standing his ground in front of the basket, then so be it, that's his problem if he misses the shot. I don't care if its under the basket or 3 feet in front of it. If he makes it, that's the defender's problem. Now if the defender is sliding over or is still moving his feet, then call a blocking foul. If the player on offense runs his shoulder/knee through the defender, call it a charge. Otherwise, don't blow the whistle.
 

Cuse315Pat

Scout Team
Joined
Dec 31, 2013
Messages
437
Like
429
It was a terrible call. He clearly had his foot in the zone. And to prove it, not that it wasn't obvious, Mike Stevens made the call.
Well once again, there is no "clearly" seen angle, unless you were there in the front row. The replay shows the bright white line behind his foot, which would in fact mean he wasn't IN the zone/arc. The question wasn't whether or not he was in the zone/arc though, because we know it wasn't inside, it was whether or not his heel was on the front of the line.
 

CorduroyG

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
8,069
Like
13,766
AZOrange said:
I will say that at least in all the games I've seen the refs seem to be calling more blocks than charges


Absolutely. I think bilas said this, if it's a bang bang play it should always be a blocking foul. The only time it should be called a charge is if it's obvious that the offensive player is out of control and throws up a wild shot. It would always kill me when a offensive player makes a great drive and scores and they call a charge. That's happened less and less this year, but it did happen at the end of regulation in nova game. Just a brutal call.
 

dasher

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
38,231
Like
92,860
Well once again, there is no "clearly" seen angle, unless you were there in the front row. The replay shows the bright white line behind his foot, which would in fact mean he wasn't IN the zone/arc. The question wasn't whether or not he was in the zone/arc though, it was whether or not his heel was on the front of the line.
I disagree. It was clear to me. A friend of mine called right after the call and said did you see that? It was clear to him as well. The annoucers at the game saw it as well. Not a tough call.
 

Cusefan0307

Mount Hima
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Messages
38,365
Like
96,612
The charge call still remains the worst officiated play in College Basketball. The officials give the offensive player very little benefit of the doubt still. Just wait until Saturday when we play "take the charge U" because they have zero shot blockers.
 

Bayside44

Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,869
Like
26,027
I would love to see a ref call a charge when the shooter flails into the defender on a long shot looking for a call while the defender is just going straight up.

Agree that that bang-bangs are blocks.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
160,353
Messages
4,334,825
Members
5,624
Latest member
Kquse

Online statistics

Members online
271
Guests online
882
Total visitors
1,153




Top Bottom