Jon Drives To The Basket And...

[BlueintheFace]

Fouled. No Call.

This is getting old.

[weezie]

Well, maybe the "venerable" Playcaller will weigh in with why we are wrong to think the way we do.

[Wildling]

Very.........

[Lord Ash]

You know, I have been getting very annoyed at announcers talking about Jon always getting the foul called when he is shooting a three by throwing his legs out; this year in particular the refs have swallowed their whistles in that situation, even when a foul looks to be warranted. It is frustrating when announcers simply add fuel to a nonsense fire.

[chrisheery]

You know, I have been getting very annoyed at announcers talking about Jon always getting the foul called when he is shooting a three by throwing his legs out; this year in particular the refs have swallowed their whistles in that situation, even when a foul looks to be warranted. It is frustrating when announcers simply add fuel to a nonsense fire.

1. He does do it.
2. Its still a foul. It is just made more obvious than if the guy hit him and he didn't fall down. This way, it is just so obvious the refs can't ignore the contact.

Speaking of which, Dre got fouled on a three in the first half and it wasn't called. I think it wasn't called because he didn't fall down.

[BlueintheFace]

I think it has to do with the fact that all of his movements are so deliberate and usually the foul call on the drive comes when your high rate of speed is altered by contact. Perhaps this is less so with Jon.

[jv001]

I think the lack of calls by the refs on Jon's drives have caused him to be tenative on those plays. At the beginning of the year, he was hitting those shots even when he was fouled. Now he seems to be going in slow motion at times. One time tonight he looked like he was really ticked off and drove hard and fast to the basket and made the shot. I would like to more of that going forward. And for the first time I felt Jon looked tired. Could have been mental fatigue or physical fatigue. But that's the way it looked to me. Not saying too many minutes but just a lot of pressure in this game. ACC Regular Season Title on the line and possible #1 seed. Hope Jon and the rest of the team get it together by Saturday, because we have a bigger game. Go Duke!

[CameronCrazy'11]

Also, what was with Jon getting called for traveling while dribbling?

And that backcourt violation after a missed shot? Huh?

[capitolhill]

Sure there were bad calls. Guess what? It's part of the game. I can't believe I'm reading Duke fans whining about the officials. People on this board used to call it "Terping", in fact. Your guys had many opportunities, but it just wasn't your night.

Another topic-I agree that fans rush the court too often, but what's even lamer is another teams fans complaining about it.

You have a great team and a great coach - be happy about it and give the Terps credit for a great win on senior night.

[Greg_Newton]

He seriously can't catch a break. There was a missed 3 in the second half where he was very, very clearly hit directly on his shooting arm by the defender's hand - we're talking full force.

It's getting ridiculous.

capitolhill: Nice timing for that first post, buddy. First of all, please point out where anyone is claiming officiating decided this game? This has become a consistent issue with Jon, game in and game out. As usual, Maryland, this isn't about you.

[Duvall]

Sure there were bad calls. Guess what? It's part of the game. I can't believe I'm reading Duke fans whining about the officials. People on this board used to call it "Terping", in fact.

Try to appreciate the difference between fans complaining about officials during a game and fans complaining about calls years, if not decades later.

It's the latter practice that makes Maryland fans so very special.

[CameronCrazy'11]

The difference is that Terps and Duke-haters genuinely believe that the officiating is always biased in Duke's favor, in every single game Duke plays; that there's a wide-spread conspiracy on the part of the NCAA to help Duke win.

Now, if someone can explain to me how that was a travel on Jon Scheyer, or why that should have been a backcourt violation, then I will gladly retract my statement, but to my untrained eyes, those calls were not just wrong, but egregiously so. They also came at a critical juncture of the game when Duke was making a run, and could have easily had an effect on the final outcome.

[Richard Berg]

Try to appreciate the difference between fans complaining about officials during a game and fans complaining about calls years, if not decades later.

It's the latter practice that makes Maryland fans so very special.
Careful. More than half the times I see our 2002 or 2004 NCAA runs mentioned on this board, the word "refs" appears in the same sentence.

[Bob Green]

Careful. More than half the times I see our 2002 or 2004 NCAA runs mentioned on this board, the word "refs" appears in the same sentence.

Agreed! In discussions on DBR in regard to the 2002 loss to Indiana, there is a lot of "Twerping" about the "obvious" foul on Carlos Boozer at the end, which wasn't called, but if Jason Williams hadn't missed the free throw the refs wouldn't have entered the equation.

In the final analysis, players have to play the game, take advantage of opportunities, and not allow situations to arise where one questionable call dictates the outcome of the game.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Taking off my Duke blue glasses, did you seen the number of times that Jordan Williams and Greivis were hammered by Singler and other Blue Devils and didn't get a call? I was really surprised by that.

For once, IMO, the reffing in this game was completely legitatimate on both ends of the floor. We definitely got away with a few calls that should definitely have been fouls.

[Richard Berg]

Zoubek also got away with a couple shoves in the 2nd half (right around the time he was cleaning up several consecutive MD misses).

[Chicago 1995]

He insists on double clutching the ball and bringing it back down. He's much more likely to get the call if he goes straight up, takes the contact and the contact alters the shot.

Instead, Jon tries to avoid the contact and usually ends up changing the shot himself and he doesn't get the call. He hasn't gotten that call very often for 3.8 years. It shouldn't surprise us that he doesn't get it now.

[weezie]

Try to appreciate the difference between fans complaining about officials during a game and fans complaining about calls years, if not decades later.

It's the latter practice that makes Maryland fans so very special.

Yeah, that plus the rioting and tear gas after the games. Mounted policemen to heard all your ugly kids into their pens, too.
Ugh, md, still bottom of the barrel.

[Spret42]

Agreed! In discussions on DBR in regard to the 2002 loss to Indiana, there is a lot of "Twerping" about the "obvious" foul on Carlos Boozer at the end, which wasn't called, but if Jason Williams hadn't missed the free throw the refs wouldn't have entered the equation.

In the final analysis, players have to play the game, take advantage of opportunities, and not allow situations to arise where one questionable call dictates the outcome of the game.

The idea that Duke fans don't complain about things years afterward is downright funny. Of course Duke fans do this. Duke fans are human, they are emotionally involved and they care. Fan bases really need to stop pointing fingers at the other guys and proclaiming how "at least we aren't like them." It is just dumb.

And basketball is a game where home teams, especially when the team and their crowd can create an emotionally charged atmosphere, get calls in their favor. I know it is taboo to say it around here but Cameron Indoor is a place where the home team gets a few calls. (I know, I know, Duke has never benefited from anything other than Coach Krzyzewski's genius and the heart and soul of wonderful kids playing their guts out.)

Referees in basketball almost NEVER have any malice or desire to lean one way, but it happens. Players reputations create fouls that are questionable. Players get reputations as tough as nails so sometimes when they do get nailed and call is warranted, they get nothing cause refs are used to seeing them drag themselves up and sprint back up the floor.

I wouldn't take too much bad from last nights game on either side of the fence. MD played a game at home, on senior night with every emotional arrow pointed at Duke and managed to win by 7. If they had continued that first 10 minutes thru 40 and won by 25 I would say Duke should examine some small things.

[KyDevilinIL]

I kinda feel like we – not just Jon – often drive not with the intention of scoring a field goal, but with the sole intention of getting fouled. I also feel like refs have figured this out and don't blow the whistle, because refs don't like to be manipulated in such a way.

[Spret42]

I kinda feel like we – not just Jon – often drive not with the intention of scoring a field goal, but with the sole intention of getting fouled. I also feel like refs have figured this out and don't blow the whistle, because refs don't like to be manipulated in such a way.

Absolutely. Go to the rim with a controlled yet aggressive intention of tearing down the backboard and when you get fouled you will find yourself at the line. Go with the intention of drawing contact, throwing the ball at the rim and taking your two free throws and refs may just look down at you, shrug and say, "get up and play defense young man."

This is all over the college game lately though, it isn't just a Duke thing.

In the last few years, especially in college basketball I have noticed refs eating their whistles a bit more because they are tired of everyone flopping around and then looking at them. I would eventually stop calling things too.

[oso diablo]

i thought Maryland benefitted from a few calls that were made (aforementioned backcourt and traveling were the most obvious), but that Duke benefitted from a few calls that were NOT made.

[BlueintheFace]

Sure there were bad calls. Guess what? It's part of the game. I can't believe I'm reading Duke fans whining about the officials. People on this board used to call it "Terping", in fact. Your guys had many opportunities, but it just wasn't your night.

Another topic-I agree that fans rush the court too often, but what's even lamer is another teams fans complaining about it.

You have a great team and a great coach - be happy about it and give the Terps credit for a great win on senior night.



This isn't about your team. Go away.

[NSDukeFan]

I kinda feel like we – not just Jon – often drive not with the intention of scoring a field goal, but with the sole intention of getting fouled. I also feel like refs have figured this out and don't blow the whistle, because refs don't like to be manipulated in such a way.

I agree that most often players should be trying to score, but I would have to add that drawing fouls is a skill and there is nothing wrong with trying to get fouled. I don't think refs try to figure out intention, or at least they shouldn't. If a player is fouled, it is by the defender, whether the offensive player was "trying to draw a foul" or not.

[moonpie23]

more concerning to me is all the little chippy shots jon has missed (got some last night and against VA) and usually gets the +1.....now he's not making the chippys, and NOT getting the foul either..


that being said.....


GO JON!!!! love ya man!!

[Richard Berg]

I agree that most often players should be trying to score, but I would have to add that drawing fouls is a skill and there is nothing wrong with trying to get fouled.
Absolutely. To anyone arguing otherwise: are you a Battier fan?

[InSpades]

Also, what was with Jon getting called for traveling while dribbling?

And that backcourt violation after a missed shot? Huh?

I'm not sure I get either of those calls. This isn't from a "Duke would've won if they got those calls" or a "we got royally screwed" viewpoint. This is from a "do I not know the rules of baskeball?" viewpoint. When a team shoots the ball, and in the scramble for the rebound the ball crosses over half-court... is that possibly an over-and-back violation? Don't you need to re-establish possession after the shot?

On the traveling off the hand-off... I don't really know what to say. It looked exactly like every other hand-off play I've ever seen in a basketball game.

I'm okay with "the refs blew those" being the answer. Refs are human afterall. The over-and-back seemed more egregious because the refs could've easily just talked the play over and called it an inadvertent whistle. The play was stopped anyway.

[TampaDuke]

I'm resigned to the fact that officials, like all of us, will makes some mistakes, resulting in some blown calls. Over the long run, I think it tends to even out so it doesn't bother me much.

That said, what does bother me is when a ref "appears" to be openly preferring one team on occasion. I see this most often, and it appeared on at least one Maryland basket last night, when a ref becomes overly enthusiastic with the "and one/score the basket" gesture. A little animation is tolerable, but I've seen in numerous games an official nearly fall over due to the overly-dramatized signaling. That said, I don't think that most refs deliberately favor a team, but I do think some might get carried away with the emotion, crowd, etc. In addition to officiating the game neutrally, refs should strive to present the appearance of neutrality as well.

Anyone else see this phenomenon or bothered by it? Or am I just reading too much into this?

[calltheobvious]

1. He does do it.
2. Its still a foul. It is just made more obvious than if the guy hit him and he didn't fall down. This way, it is just so obvious the refs can't ignore the contact.

Speaking of which, Dre got fouled on a three in the first half and it wasn't called. I think it wasn't called because he didn't fall down.

That's right. It's an offensive foul.

If a shooter kicks his leg out in a way that's judged not to be part of a natural shooting motion, and in so doing makes contact with the defender, this should be ruled a foul on the shooter.

[jv001]

That's right. It's an offensive foul.

If a shooter kicks his leg out in a way that's judged not to be part of a natural shooting motion, and in so doing makes contact with the defender, this should be ruled a foul on the shooter.

But I think Jon has done it so long it's part of his natural shooting motion. Go Duke!

[BlueintheFace]

That's right. It's an offensive foul.

If a shooter kicks his leg out in a way that's judged not to be part of a natural shooting motion, and in so doing makes contact with the defender, this should be ruled a foul on the shooter.

A leg kick is actually a fairly common element of a shooter's motion (whether it should be or not is another discussion).

The history of the rule you cite is tied up in the effort to keep driving players from gaining an advantage by kicking forward on the drive. In short, you are not really applying the rule correctly, or at the very least, as it was intended.

[CDu]

A leg kick is actually a fairly common element of a shooter's motion (whether it should be or not is another discussion).

On set shots, it's only common if the player is trying to draw a foul. Scheyer's normal shooting motion with nobody around him does not involve a big leg kick. He only does it when a defender is nearby. He also frequently extends his arms much more horizontally in that situation than he does when he's all alone, in an attempt to draw contact.

Scheyer has (like many others), over the years, drawn many fouls that probably shouldn't have been called by doing this and exaggerating the fall afterward. He's gotten a lot of no-calls on these plays as well, which I think many fans lump in with him getting hacked and not getting a call.

I'd say the number of bad calls in Scheyer's favor on threes greatly outnumbers the number of bad calls the other way. That's great for him and for us, but bad for basketball in general.


The history of the rule you cite is tied up in the effort to keep driving players from gaining an advantage by kicking forward on the drive. In short, you are not really applying the rule correctly, or at the very least, as it was intended.

Whether or not the rule is being applied as intended, I think the exaggerated leg kick by the shooter should be called an offensive foul. It can be a dangerous contact play, and on top of that it's not in the best spirit of the game.

[Heelo]

but i think jon has done it so long it's part of his natural shooting motion. Go duke!

lol!

:)

[noyac]

That said, what does bother me is when a ref "appears" to be openly preferring one team on occasion. I see this most often, and it appeared on at least one Maryland basket last night, when a ref becomes overly enthusiastic with the "and one/score the basket" gesture. A little animation is tolerable, but I've seen in numerous games an official nearly fall over due to the overly-dramatized signaling. That said, I don't think that most refs deliberately favor a team, but I do think some might get carried away with the emotion, crowd, etc. In addition to officiating the game neutrally, refs should strive to present the appearance of neutrality as well.

Anyone else see this phenomenon or bothered by it? Or am I just reading too much into this?

I notice it and I am sad to admit I hate it when we are on the road but I love it when we are at home. As stated in this thread before the refs are human and can get "caught up" in the moment but as you stated they should try to present themselves as neutrally as possible and when they react with the over-the-top and 1 calls that is not presenting a nuetral appearance.

[blueprofessor]

Agreed! In discussions on DBR in regard to the 2002 loss to Indiana, there is a lot of "Twerping" about the "obvious" foul on Carlos Boozer at the end, which wasn't called, but if Jason Williams hadn't missed the free throw the refs wouldn't have entered the equation.

In the final analysis, players have to play the game, take advantage of opportunities, and not allow situations to arise where one questionable call dictates the outcome of the game.

Jason's free throw would have tied the game and ,given the time left, forced overtime.Duke could still have lost in OT.
Boozer's dunk ,however, would have won the game. At least with the Jeffries foul call, Boozer would have had 2 shots to tie or win the game. Boozer was 9th in the league in foul shot accuracy at 75.4%. Jeffries admitted in the IU locker room that he had tackled Boozer's arm.
While the tie game was in Jason's hands , the game winner was prevented from being in Carlos's control by virtue of one of the most infamous no-calls in tourney history.
That Duke team was destined for the Final Four.We were ranked #1 in the final AP poll and had a 31-3 record before IU. We beat MD 99-78 and lost to them 87-73.
Indiana beat the 10th seed Kent State in the Elite Eight to advance to the Final Four.
We had a great shot to win that championship, had the ref not entered the equation and prevented the shots (Boozer's) that could have won the game.

Best--Blueprofessor:)

[BlueintheFace]

On set shots, it's only common if the player is trying to draw a foul. Scheyer's normal shooting motion with nobody around him does not involve a big leg kick. He only does it when a defender is nearby. He also frequently extends his arms much more horizontally in that situation than he does when he's all alone, in an attempt to draw contact.

Scheyer has (like many others), over the years, drawn many fouls that probably shouldn't have been called by doing this and exaggerating the fall afterward. He's gotten a lot of no-calls on these plays as well, which I think many fans lump in with him getting hacked and not getting a call.

I'd say the number of bad calls in Scheyer's favor on threes greatly outnumbers the number of bad calls the other way. That's great for him and for us, but bad for basketball in general.



Whether or not the rule is being applied as intended, I think the exaggerated leg kick by the shooter should be called an offensive foul. It can be a dangerous contact play, and on top of that it's not in the best spirit of the game.

This is all well and good. I was just pointing out how the rule is applied (and was meant to apply originally), not how it should be applied. I don't really complain about getting fouled on threes unless the player gets run down.

My issue is with the fouls in the lane on the drive.

[rsvman]

I think Jon sealed his own fate on the play where the official called backcourt. The ball was loose and never really under Jon's control, so no call should have been made. However, as the ball was about to cross over into the backcourt area, Jon pulled back his hands as if he was trying to make sure he didn't touch it in the backcourt. He later abandoned that idea and went after the ball.

In my opinion, the second he acted like he didn't want to touch that ball he planted the idea in the official's mind that touching it would amount to a backcourt violation, thus he ended up making the call. If Jon had just run after the ball and retrieved it, I don't think the official would have blown that whistle.

As far as the travelling violation goes, I have no freaking clue what the ref was thinking. None whatsoever.

[davidrosenhp]

Michael Jordon and Kobe Bryant have refined the art of kicking out their legs on three pointers to create space. Granted, fouls don't get called on superstars in the NBA, but Scheyer may be smart enough to have seen this and added it to his motion.

[mapei]

The problem with Jon's drives last night wasn't the lack of foul calls but that they were way too often poorly conceived and poorly executed. He's been my favorite player on this team for quite a while, but he didn't give me much to peg that on last night.

[shoutingncu]

That said, what does bother me is when a ref "appears" to be openly preferring one team on occasion. I see this most often, and it appeared on at least one Maryland basket last night, when a ref becomes overly enthusiastic with the "and one/score the basket" gesture.

Strike???

[ArnieMc]

Strike???I didn't know Teddy Valentine umpired baseball.

[Scorp4me]

Also, what was with Jon getting called for traveling while dribbling?

And that backcourt violation after a missed shot? Huh?

After that I said those two bad calls wouldn't change the game if Duke could get a stop. Unfortunately Maryland got a nice dunk and I felt then that was the game.

[calltheobvious]

A leg kick is actually a fairly common element of a shooter's motion (whether it should be or not is another discussion).

The history of the rule you cite is tied up in the effort to keep driving players from gaining an advantage by kicking forward on the drive. In short, you are not really applying the rule correctly, or at the very least, as it was intended.

No.

I'm not talking about Karl Malone plays; I'm talking about Reggie Miller plays. Every player and every official knows that there's a significant difference between a slight forward movement of one leg due to inertia during a shot, and an intentional extension of the leg that's intended to draw contact with the defender. Contact generated by the latter is by rule a foul on the offense, but by the former is not, and could be ruled a foul on the defense. I assumed that I made that clear in my previuos discussion of the "natural" shooting motion.

[calltheobvious]

Jason's free throw would have tied the game and ,given the time left, forced overtime.Duke could still have lost in OT.
Boozer's dunk ,however, would have won the game. At least with the Jeffries foul call, Boozer would have had 2 shots to tie or win the game. Boozer was 9th in the league in foul shot accuracy at 75.4%. Jeffries admitted in the IU locker room that he had tackled Boozer's arm.
While the tie game was in Jason's hands , the game winner was prevented from being in Carlos's control by virtue of one of the most infamous no-calls in tourney history.
That Duke team was destined for the Final Four.We were ranked #1 in the final AP poll and had a 31-3 record before IU. We beat MD 99-78 and lost to them 87-73.
Indiana beat the 10th seed Kent State in the Elite Eight to advance to the Final Four.
We had a great shot to win that championship, had the ref not entered the equation and prevented the shots (Boozer's) that could have won the game.

Best--Blueprofessor:)


We blew a 14-point lead in that game against a team that had was far inferior in both talent and coaching. It's on the team and staff that the officials even had an opportunity to become involved in a decisive play.

Bemoaning '04 UConn is one thing, but talking about the Boozer play makes us look sad.

[SharkD]

Strike???

Hey! It's Enrico Pallazzo!

[BlueintheFace]

No.

I'm not talking about Karl Malone plays; I'm talking about Reggie Miller plays. Every player and every official knows that there's a significant difference between a slight forward movement of one leg due to inertia during a shot, and an intentional extension of the leg that's intended to draw contact with the defender. Contact generated by the latter is by rule a foul on the offense, but by the former is not, and could be ruled a foul on the defense. I assumed that I made that clear in my previuos discussion of the "natural" shooting motion.

Who cares about "by Rule?" See the second half of my post.

[tele]

No.

I'm not talking about Karl Malone plays; I'm talking about Reggie Miller plays. Every player and every official knows that there's a significant difference between a slight forward movement of one leg due to inertia during a shot, and an intentional extension of the leg that's intended to draw contact with the defender. Contact generated by the latter is by rule a foul on the offense, but by the former is not, and could be ruled a foul on the defense. I assumed that I made that clear in my previuos discussion of the "natural" shooting motion.

What?? What is a natural shooting motion? Ever see Cazzie Russel/michael jordon play? If a player extends his leg when shooting it is not necessarily an offensive foul. How is that different than a shooter extending his off arm toward a defender to ward off a block on a hook shot in the lane? I've never seen an offensive foul called on a shooter for that.

You are right that it shouldn't result in a foul call on the defender, but that doesn't make it an offensive foul. If the offensive player kicks the defender or the defender grabs the offensive players leg, (and i've seen both happen) then you have to make the appropriate foul calls.