Your thoughts on the in game reviews that re-officiate the game

[dahlhawk]

No one has stated yet if the changing of a foul is within the power of an official, basically replay and redefining the call. Upgrading to a flagrant, yes, but a call reversal? I wasn't aware officials had that power,. This has nothing to do with being pro-Hawk. Games could get pretty long if officials reviewed every call. Is this a recent rules change? Are coaches going to be allowed to challenge like NCAA football?

 

[PCHawk]

No one has stated yet if the changing of a foul is within the power of an official, basically replay and redefining the call. Upgrading to a flagrant, yes, but a call reversal? I wasn't aware officials had that power,. This has nothing to do with being pro-Hawk. Games could get pretty long if officials reviewed every call. Is this a recent rules change? Are coaches going to be allowed to challenge like NCAA football?

The way the announcers were talking, you can't go into another players cylinder. I think both the announcers and the officials misinterpreted the rule. Either that or the rule is a joke. You should never be called for a foul if the other player initiates the contact. A rule where it's not a foul to initiate contact with a defender in your cylinder makes sense. A rule where all you have to do to draw a foul is elbow a defender who gets close to you is a stupid rule.

 

[ChosenChildren]

For example today, when the psu guy elbowed JT after a loose ball and the ref right there doesnt call a reach on JT but calls the elbow on the PSU guy.

I dont care if they review for a Flagrant but what is this cylinder shit after the fact called during a review that changes who the foul is on.

First off JT's hands were low and the PSU guy could pivot out of that trouble but instead he threw an elbow. That should have been it. Next thing you know were going to be reversing calls all over the place like in football.

hate the reviews. They are ruining basketball and football

 

[dahlhawk]

The way the announcers were talking, you can't go into another players cylinder. I think both the announcers and the officials misinterpreted the rule. Either that or the rule is a joke. You should never be called for a foul if the other player initiates the contact. A rule where it's not a foul to initiate contact with a defender in your cylinder makes sense. A rule where all you have to do to draw a foul is elbow a defender who gets close to you is a stupid rule.

. If that’s the case there can be no trapping based on that call. A player can simple initiate contact and get bailed out. The PSU player made a complete move into a stationary player as well as bringing his arms through Joe. I bet this call is never called again like this. Surely not the intention of the rule, I’m sure it was proposed to avoid head to head or head to elbow contact when players tried to reach for or tie up the ball, neither of which Joe was doing.

 

[PCHawk]

. If that’s the case there can be no trapping based on that call. A player can simple initiate contact and get bailed out. The PSU player made a complete move into a stationary player as well as bringing his arms through Joe. I bet this call is never called again like this. Surely not the intention of the rule, I’m sure it was proposed to avoid head to head or head to elbow contact when players tried to reach for or tie up the ball, neither of which Joe was doing.

I agree. The call seems to be so the player with the ball can do something other than give up a jump ball when trapped. Otherwise he moves around "being strong with the ball" and bumps someone, getting called for a charge. The rule makes sense for there to be a no foul call. It doesn't make sense to just give the defender a foul every time the offensive player initiates contact.

 

[smitharooney]

There is no such thing as an over the back call or a reaching in call if the defender doesn't make contact. Everyone knows that. When you jump into someone's back and push them forward to get a rebound from behind them, that is absolutely a foul and people call it "over the back".

When you reach in and don't make contact, it's not a foul. Everyone also knows that. But when you reach in and make contact, it's a foul. People call it a "reach in".

I see people all the time say there is no such thing as an over the back or a reach in. Since you just said it, can I ask you why? Do you think people don't understand that it's not a foul if you don't make contact? Or do you just hate the naming of the fouls? Would you rather someone say "he jumped up and bumped him from behind when he was trying to get that rebound!"? Because to me it's just easier to say "over the back" since everyone knows what that means anyway.

Or is it just people trying to sound smart because they think they know something about basketball that other people don't?

There is no such thing as an over the back call or a reaching in call if the defender doesn't make contact. Everyone knows that. When you jump into someone's back and push them forward to get a rebound from behind them, that is absolutely a foul and people call it "over the back".

When you reach in and don't make contact, it's not a foul. Everyone also knows that. But when you reach in and make contact, it's a foul. People call it a "reach in".

I see people all the time say there is no such thing as an over the back or a reach in. Since you just said it, can I ask you why? Do you think people don't understand that it's not a foul if you don't make contact? Or do you just hate the naming of the fouls? Would you rather someone say "he jumped up and bumped him from behind when he was trying to get that rebound!"? Because to me it's just easier to say "over the back" since everyone knows what that means anyway.

Or is it just people trying to sound smart because they think they know something about basketball that other people don't?

I’m an official . Certified to do varsity high school basketball . I’m saying there is no such calls for an official for reach or over the back .