Another Lane Violation (Notre Dame)
- Thread starter H8IAST8
- Start date
ForeverHawk
Well-Known Member
What if the ref did not call the violation and the Notre Dame player got the rebound and scored a layup that could have helped them win the game? That is a violation because it gives the guy at the top of the key a clear advantage if he can get a running start. And to clear up the rule, the ball has to hit the rim before that player can move, not on the release of the shot. Everybody else can move on the release, they guy at the top of the key has to wait for it to hit the rim. Also, the intentional foul was legit. He grabbed his jersey for four or five steps???
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
You're right. Guys make that shot all the time
The right call was made in the Creighton game and the wrong call was made in the Notre Dame game. Let players decide the ending, that is all.
Iowatailgate
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't the foul most likely be on the guy flying in from the 3 point line?
If the guy down low boxes out and gets position for the rebound, I don't see how the guy from the 3 point line gets the ball....unless the shot is a brick and takes a big bounce off the rim.
Iowatailgate
Well-Known Member
Here is the video from tonight if anyone missed it:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiPODjwgPvA]Notre Dame lane violation vs. Xavier. Blown call? Controversial? - YouTube[/ame]
The guy didn't even come close to getting the rebound(if it was a miss).
Seems like a dumb rule to me.
It's funny because nobody has ever heard of this rule until yesterday.
I'm sure it has happened plenty of times during the regular season. Funny how it has never been called before.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiPODjwgPvA]Notre Dame lane violation vs. Xavier. Blown call? Controversial? - YouTube[/ame]
The guy didn't even come close to getting the rebound(if it was a miss).
Seems like a dumb rule to me.
It's funny because nobody has ever heard of this rule until yesterday.
I'm sure it has happened plenty of times during the regular season. Funny how it has never been called before.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Getting position on a guy with a running start (and who can go in any direction) is what's difficult to do without fouling. More likely, you'd trip the guy and get called for some kind of blocking foul.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
But then yesterday, a player who broke this rule DID get the rebound.
Your logic here opens a whole other can of worms. We ***** about officials' judgement all the time. Now you want to give them even more opportunities to judge incorrectly? Where do they draw the line on this? Especially since the whistle gets blown as soon as the violation is made?
ForeverHawk
Well-Known Member
The right call was made in the Creighton game. It can't be the wrong call in the Notre Dame game if it was the correct call, right?
Iowatailgate
Well-Known Member
The call was correct. The official had to make the call.
I'm just saying I think it's a dumb rule. Once the ball is released, everyone should be able to go for the rebound. Seems foolish to restrict players from going after the shot.
Just my opinion. I understand he may gain an advantage by getting off to a running start. However, he's still 15 feet behind the guy down low. It's not like he can bulldoze players down. He still has to make some sort of athletic move to get the rebound.
There are plenty or rules worse than this one, so I really don't care. Notre Dame lost, so I'm happy.
H8IAST8
Well-Known Member
Albama was fouled plan and simple. Absolutely no debate imo.
BumpThaBurrito
Member
i undersand why you wod get mad if foul is called wen no foul is done. why you getting mad wen rule is broke and they call foul tho. if rule is broke. you call foul. no.
H8IAST8
Well-Known Member
the announcers said the rule was whenthe ball is released. I was corrected and it was probably the correct call, but it would not have impacted the game, because he made it.
ColumbusHawk
Well-Known Member
Mike Stuart, a member of the three-man officiating crew that worked the game, said in a prepared statement about the call: "The rule is that anyone outside the 3-point arc is under the same restrictions as the free throw shooter. They cannot penetrate the arc until the ball hits the rim, in which case No. 22 [Grant] was clearly way down in the lane before the ball ever hit. It's an obvious violation, by the rule."
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
Like I said let the players decide the ending of the game. Creighton Official swallowed the whistle and the ND game ended because officials decided to blow his with 2.8 seconds on a made free throw to cut the game to 1 with another FT attempt coming. LMAO. The game ended on that officials call and what a ridiculous call that was. Sorry I maybe in the minority but I think that is weak!!
Last edited:
tm3308
Well-Known Member
While that's ultimately true, then blow the whistle when the violation occurs. They don't wait to see the result of the play. It's like a false start in football. You see the foul, you blow the whistle, and what happens immediately after that is irrelevant.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Good, quality officiating is enforcing the rules when they are BLATANTLY violated, regardless of how much time is left. This wasn't a Hightower or Valentine call, for Christ's sake.
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
Well I disagree TM. Just my opinion. I respect your stance.
HawkPrdatr40
Well-Known Member
I think good quality officials do try to take themselves out of the result in very close contested games, you will see it today. Game gets under 10 seconds to play they will swallow the whistle and let the team decide the outcome.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I just don't understand the idea that blowing the whistle on a clear violation is injection yourself into the action, when NOT calling it has an equal impact (only it negatively impacts the other team). It's one thing to let ticky-tack "fouls" go (I despise those calls no matter when they occur). But blatantly obvious fouls/violations have to be called regardless of the situation.
A good official isn't afraid of the controversy/public reaction. If you're afraid to make the call that has to be made, all because people are going to get ****** about it, then you shouldn't be an official in the first place.
HawkeyeDug
Well-Known Member
This. Letting a player hack a shooter in the closing seconds is not letting the players decide the game. It is allowing the defending team to "cheat". A foul is a foul whether in the opening minute of the game or the final seconds.
