Most Inconsistently Called Fouls in College Basketball?

[hustleplays]

What do you think are the most inconsistently called [frustrating, violence (remotes hurled at TVs, etc.) inducing] fouls in college basketball?

I could have chosen "most difficult" foul calls, but some might say that certain calls are not that difficult to make -- they just aren't called consistently. Balls and strikes in baseball might come to mind.

I'm interested in why you think the calls are made inconsistently. Perhaps it is the inherent difficulty, perhaps rule ambiguity, perhaps refs' habits, perhaps a tendency by the refs to make the safe, conventional call.

Getting the conversation started, my vote for one of the most inconsistently made calls is that made against post defenders when they are called for blocking after appearing to stand still, perfectly straight, arms and hands held high. Bilas almost always finds some minute, aesthetic defect in the statuary pose of such a defender. I'm dubious.

I'm interested to hear what y'all think.

[Hingeknocker]

To me, it's the hand checking/outright fouling that certain teams get away with on the perimeter that frustrates me the most. All you have to do is build up a reputation *cough Virginia* for being a pesky defensive *cough West Virginia* team and the refs will let you get away with fouling every possession. So that's the inconsistent thing I immediately think of.

Also the block/charge, like you mention. Honestly, the game of basketball would be monstrously improved if they just banned the charge. Standing still while the offensive player attempts to score isn't defense. You either try to stop the shot or you get called for a foul. None of this bailing out bad defense anymore, imo.

[UrinalCake]

I’d say calling big guys for fouls when they’re fighting for position in the post. Most of the time they’re allowed to bang in there, but then randomly a guy gets called when it’s no different than what has been happening all game.

I also don’t like when the shooter initiates contact by leaning into the defender and it gets the benefit of the call.

Moving screens don’t get called very often, and almost never in the pros. But it seems frequent that I’ll see a screener stick out his hip as the defender tries to go around, or start diving to the basket too early. They seem really easy to spot, at least from my view potatoing it on the couch, and I wish refs called them more.

[Tooold]

Moving screens don’t get called very often, and almost never in the pros. But it seems frequent that I’ll see a screener stick out his hip as the defender tries to go around, or start diving to the basket too early. They seem really easy to spot, at least from my view potatoing it on the couch, and I wish refs called them more.

Moving screens bug me the most...I, too, seem to notice them a lot from my couch and there are certain teams that seem to set them a lot (not going to name names....) The really egregious ones are actually dangerous.

But I agree with the other choices as well. I think, like in youth hockey, some officials have their “favorite” calls and they look for those (e.g., hand checks). Those refs seem less able to see other things.

[Devilwin]

Block/charge.:confused:

[DevilHorse]

I’d say calling big guys for fouls when they’re fighting for position in the post. Most of the time they’re allowed to bang in there, but then randomly a guy gets called when it’s no different than what has been happening all game.

I also don’t like when the shooter initiates contact by leaning into the defender and it gets the benefit of the call.

Moving screens don’t get called very often, and almost never in the pros. But it seems frequent that I’ll see a screener stick out his hip as the defender tries to go around, or start diving to the basket too early. They seem really easy to spot, at least from my view potatoing it on the couch, and I wish refs called them more.

Is there clarity on the rule (before you make the ref the culprit?)? Can you foul a guy with your rump, backing up and getting position when you are in a scrum? You'd think that you could, but I've never seen that called. When you fight for position would seem to be very important for when a call would be made. The principle of verticality should seem to be just as valid gaining position as playing defense. Although an offensive player can only be in the lane for 3 seconds (theoretically).

Larry
DevilHorse

[AGDukesky]

Agree with all above but one other thing that drives me crazy is when a player is about to make an easy, open layup and the defender makes a last ditch (and half-hearted) swipe at the ball that makes either the slightest contact that in no way affects the shot or none at all. So many times an “and 1” is given.Yet, in most other driving situations the player has to be hammered to get the “and 1” call.

[TruBlu]

Coaches out of the coaches box, even sometimes being on the court during live action (Looking at you Buzz and Josh)

3 second rule

Palming

Ball handler pushing off with non-dribbling hand (Looking at you Cassius Winston)

And, even though it is years too late . . . Hanstraveling!!!

Teddy Valentine


Obviously, I'm not a big ref fan.:p

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Three second rule.

Frustrating to see offensive players being allowed to camp out in the lane. You’re supposed to leave the lane with BOTH feet before re-entering. But guys often shift just a little, stick a foot across the line and keep on keeping on with no violation. Puts the defender at a serious disadvantage (and at risk for a foul) to have to keep fighting a player illegally occupying space in the lane.

[weezie]

I’d say calling big guys for fouls when they’re fighting for position in the post. Most of the time they’re allowed to bang in there, but then randomly a guy gets called when it’s no different than what has been happening all game. I also don’t like when the shooter initiates contact by leaning into the defender and it gets the benefit of the call. Moving screens don’t get called very often...

Post of the thread. Absolutely agree.

[moonpie23]

palming

3 seconds

5 seconds

block/charge

[WVDUKEFAN]

I'm not sure of the exact term, but inside the player's arc is pretty controversial. It happens mainly during double teams, and I see a lot of inconsistency with that particular call.

[JimBD]

Non-calls: traveling, palming, double dribble, three seconds, all of which happen frequently but are seldom called

[uh_no]

Three second rule.

Frustrating to see offensive players being allowed to camp out in the lane. You’re supposed to leave the lane with BOTH feet before re-entering. But guys often shift just a little, stick a foot across the line and keep on keeping on with no violation. Puts the defender at a serious disadvantage (and at risk for a foul) to have to keep fighting a player illegally occupying space in the lane.

Your understanding of the rule is wrong.


Art. 2. It is a violation for a player to have any part of his body remain in the
three-second lane for more than three consecutive seconds while the ball is in
control of that player’s team in his frontcourt.

All a player must do is have one foot outside the lane, and lift the other foot, at which point, no part of their body is "in the lane." Note that being in the space above the lane is irrelevant, as the rulebook is explicit when that applies, such as the charge arc, as seen here:


A secondary defender is considered to be in the restricted area when any part
of either foot is in or above this area.


The difference in language is quite clear. So effectively one foot outside, and a "shuffle" in which the other foot just barely leaves the court is good enough. Per the letter of the rule, jumping up and down would also be satisfactory...but not sure I've ever seen someone try to be a test case for that, and I'm not sure that jumping up and down would really be effective "camping out" that the rule tries to prevent anyway.

[UrinalCake]

5 seconds

Are you referring to the “five second closely guarded” rule? I thought they eliminated that several years ago?

Or do you mean having five seconds to inbound the ball? That does seem very inconsistent to me. The ref waving his arm back and forth isn’t exactly Swiss timing, though I recognize the inherent difficulty in what they are being asked to do.

[hustleplays]

Post of the thread. Absolutely agree.

That's how I see it. Lots of banging going on, pretty much non-stop, then all of a sudden, someone gets flagged. Must be how a hapless gazelle feels being singled out by the big cats when there are hundreds in the herd. Why me? Why now?

Seriously, do any of you believe that these kinds of fouls on big men are not capricious? What are we not seeing? Please break the code.

[Bluedog]

Block/charge is the obvious answer.

Another one that bugs me is over the back. Just because a guy gets a rebound over another guy who is closer to the hoop doesn't mean it's a foul. Most of the time, it's just called rebounding. In fact, I would prefer if this was never called except in cases where the player clearly shoves/pushes/hits arm of player in front of them. Besides that, it's just battling for a rebound.

[bundabergdevil]

What do you think are the most inconsistently called [frustrating, violence (remotes hurled at TVs, etc.) inducing] fouls in college basketball?

I could have chosen "most difficult" foul calls, but some might say that certain calls are not that difficult to make -- they just aren't called consistently. Balls and strikes in baseball might come to mind.

I'm interested in why you think the calls are made inconsistently. Perhaps it is the inherent difficulty, perhaps rule ambiguity, perhaps refs' habits, perhaps a tendency by the refs to make the safe, conventional call.

Getting the conversation started, my vote for one of the most inconsistently made calls is that made against post defenders when they are called for blocking after appearing to stand still, perfectly straight, arms and hands held high. Bilas almost always finds some minute, aesthetic defect in the statuary pose of such a defender. I'm dubious.

I'm interested to hear what y'all think.


Most frustrating, violence against the remote inducing fouls you ask? Why those called against Duke of course....


....except when K gets a technical. I like those.

[peterjswift]

I agree with a lot of what was already posted, but a couple that irk me that I didn't see mentioned include:



No-calls on final plays of a game. I understand that refs are swallowing their whistles in those game-ending attempts at a shot or in the carnage of trying to grab a loose ball on the final rebound, but calling the game the same way in the last 5 seconds as it has been called all game is important. This is probably my most frustrating one. I hate seeing a losing team get absolutely hammered trying to make a game-winning/tying shot and there be no foul. Don't change the application of the rules just because the game is on the line. I've never seen a foul called when a shooter leans in/initiates contact on a 3-pointer in an end-game situation, but I see it called with great regularity in-game. Use the monitor if you need to, wave off the foul and end the game if you need to (if the replay justifies it), but don't just swallow your whistle.
Loose ball fouls in general. When a player dives on top of another player to go for a ball, or even over top of them (and as such, restricts their ability to move or go toward the ball), this should be called. I really can't stand the "scrums" that often happen. I thought this was actually a "point of emphasis" for refs two years ago, but haven't seen this called consistently. Especially with the new cylinder rule, I feel like if there is a player ever draped over another player, there should be a whistle.
Coaches on the court. I don't know why this bugs me so much, and I have noticed refs warning coaches about this more often, but for some reason it really annoys me when coaches are 5+ feet onto the court yelling directions at their players. I'm actually rather impressed there are less collisions, but I think if you can't communicate with your team from the bench due to crowd noise, excitement, particular game situation, etc, that is something that should be resolved through practice/better communication methods, not just by running over and yelling at them.
More techs in end-of-game situations when teams are fouling to extend the game. This was also a point of emphasis last year, I think, and I have seen a few techs called in these situations, but not frequently enough. There are rarely plays on the ball, and I think the ref should have discretion and ability to call those techs, since they're only a "basketball play" in that they are part of a commonly used strategy to extend the game. NBA made some changes in this regard too.

[DUKIECB]

Agree with all above but one other thing that drives me crazy is when a player is about to make an easy, open layup and the defender makes a last ditch (and half-hearted) swipe at the ball that makes either the slightest contact that in no way affects the shot or none at all. So many times an “and 1” is given.Yet, in most other driving situations the player has to be hammered to get the “and 1” call.This! So many times the ref calls the motion of the defender on these and when the replay is shown he didn't even touch him. What is maddening to me is the fact that defenders do it in the first place. If you know you aren't going to be able to make the play why even take a swipe? Either don't do it or hammer his forearm to make sure he doesn't get the and 1.

[devilnfla]

The perimeter traveling call. For example, when a player pump fakes and then takes a step before dribbling the ball. Have never understood the inconsistency with that call but it seems like it's called most often on a team that has the momentum going against them.

[peterjswift]

The perimeter traveling call. For example, when a player pump fakes and then takes a step before dribbling the ball. Have never understood the inconsistency with that call but it seems like it's called most often on a team that has the momentum going against them.

I heard Mike Golic once say that every single play in the NFL includes a hold, and if you watched each play in slow-motion, with the benefit of replay, you could call holding on pretty much every play.

I think the same could probably be said of basketball with travelling. Maybe not quite as egregious as holding in football, but there's no doubt that it happens a lot, though I think it most commonly happens in low-pressure situations where it isn't happening in such a way that the offense gains an advantage, or as a result of defensive pressure (for example, a point guard walking the ball up to half court).

[tbyers11]

The correct answer to this question is all fouls called in a game in which Jay Bilas is an announcer. :p

If you listen to him, nearly every call or (non-call) made by an official is incorrect. Frequently due to inconsistent interpretation of the rules

[budwom]

The correct answer to this question is all fouls called in a game in which Jay Bilas is an announcer. :p

If you listen to him, nearly every call or (non-call) made by an official is incorrect. Frequently due to inconsistent interpretation of the rules

You beat me to it. The man has a ton of knowledge about the game, yet feels compelled to play sideline ref each and every game. Can't believe someone at ESPN hasn't nudged him to change....listened to only about five minutes of the unc-State game, he was a broken record on fouls.

[left_hook_lacey]

What do you think are the most inconsistently called [frustrating, violence (remotes hurled at TVs, etc.) inducing] fouls in college basketball?

I could have chosen "most difficult" foul calls, but some might say that certain calls are not that difficult to make -- they just aren't called consistently. Balls and strikes in baseball might come to mind.

I'm interested in why you think the calls are made inconsistently. Perhaps it is the inherent difficulty, perhaps rule ambiguity, perhaps refs' habits, perhaps a tendency by the refs to make the safe, conventional call.

Getting the conversation started, my vote for one of the most inconsistently made calls is that made against post defenders when they are called for blocking after appearing to stand still, perfectly straight, arms and hands held high. Bilas almost always finds some minute, aesthetic defect in the statuary pose of such a defender. I'm dubious.

I'm interested to hear what y'all think.
Yes.

[Neals384]

You beat me to it. The man has a ton of knowledge about the game, yet feels compelled to play sideline ref each and every game. Can't believe someone at ESPN hasn't nudged him to change...listened to only about five minutes of the unc-State game, he was a broken record on fouls.

But he was right about the call where the cheats were awarded 3 free throws but the shooter didn’t even begin his shooting moron until the foul occurred.

[jv001]

You beat me to it. The man has a ton of knowledge about the game, yet feels compelled to play sideline ref each and every game. Can't believe someone at ESPN hasn't nudged him to change...listened to only about five minutes of the unc-State game, he was a broken record on fouls.

In every game that Bilas does, after about 3 or 4 minutes into the game, I have to turn the sound down because he goes on and on about every call or non call. He just can't help himself. I wonder if there's a meeting similar to AA that Jay can attend to help him over this? I'm kidding of course, but I agree he has a wonderful knowledge of the game and could be a joy to listen to. I could even put up with the Anti-Duke references. The only thing worse than listening to Jay go on and on about the refs would be for Jay to teamed up with Bill Walton, bless his heart.

GoDuke!

[jv001]

But he was right about the call where the cheats were awarded 3 free throws but the shooter didn’t even begin his shooting moron until the foul occurred.

did you just call Jay a moron. :cool:
GoDuke!

[Phredd3]

did you just call Jay a moron. :cool:
GoDuke!

I thought he called the cheat player a moron. 9F.

[rsvman]

I agree with a lot of what was already posted, but a couple that irk me that I didn't see mentioned include:



No-calls on final plays of a game. I understand that refs are swallowing their whistles in those game-ending attempts at a shot or in the carnage of trying to grab a loose ball on the final rebound, but calling the game the same way in the last 5 seconds as it has been called all game is important. This is probably my most frustrating one. I hate seeing a losing team get absolutely hammered trying to make a game-winning/tying shot and there be no foul. Don't change the application of the rules just because the game is on the line. I've never seen a foul called when a shooter leans in/initiates contact on a 3-pointer in an end-game situation, but I see it called with great regularity in-game. Use the monitor if you need to, wave off the foul and end the game if you need to (if the replay justifies it), but don't just swallow your whistle.


I take it you didn't watch the UVa game against Auburn in the NCAA tournament last season?

[Phredd3]

The perimeter traveling call. For example, when a player pump fakes and then takes a step before dribbling the ball. Have never understood the inconsistency with that call but it seems like it's called most often on a team that has the momentum going against them.

And at the same time, the Harden-esque jab and step-back is never called.

[peterjswift]

I take it you didn't watch the UVa game against Auburn in the NCAA tournament last season?

The thread title was "inconsistently" called fouls. I applauded that ref at the time, despite the disruption to the flow of the game.

Ironically, that situation might have created the only time I've agreed with Bruce Pearl: "My advice ... if that's a foul, call it," Pearl said. "Call it at the beginning of the game, call it in the middle of the game, call it at the end of the game. Don't call it any more or less at any other time during the game." But I'm taking that out of context to back up my opinion, not really in agreement with the spirit of his quote...

[wsb3]

I thought about this thread during the game last night when the officials spent 5? minutes reviewing a play that was crystal clear. I get that they are checking clock as well. The review of the play taking so long, though not a foul, is one thing I am sick of. The play called on the court holds up unless there is substantial evidence to overturn. How about if you can't find that evidence in one minute. Stop & go with the call on the floor.

[House P]

I thought about this thread during the game last night when the officials spent 5? minutes reviewing a play that was crystal clear. I get that they are checking clock as well. The review of the play taking so long, though not a foul, is one thing I am sick of. The play called on the court holds up unless there is substantial evidence to overturn. How about if you can't find that evidence in one minute. Stop & go with the call on the floor.

Hey, at least it only took them a minute or two to review the out of bounds call with 10 sec left in the game. Vitally important that they get that one right. Otherwise Pitt they might have robbed Pitt the opportunity to set up the 12 point play they needed to tie the game. :rolleyes:

[uh_no]

I thought about this thread during the game last night when the officials spent 5? minutes reviewing a play that was crystal clear. I get that they are checking clock as well. The review of the play taking so long, though not a foul, is one thing I am sick of. The play called on the court holds up unless there is substantial evidence to overturn. How about if you can't find that evidence in one minute. Stop & go with the call on the floor.

which is ironic as it took them forever to overturn a call that was clearly wrong.....the kind of call replay is SUPPOSED to fix quickly.

[AZLA]

Coaches coming out of the coaching box

[budwom]

I love the fact that all leagues lie profusely (ACC, MLB, NFL, everyone) when noting that "the average review takes 42 seconds" or whatever bogus "stat" they cite. I've napped thru some of them and missed nothing.

[DarkstarWahoo]

I've long had a theory, only partly facetious, that the vast majority of traveling calls aren't based on number of steps, but the player in question looking awkward when he moves.

[uh_no]

I love the fact that all leagues lie profusely (ACC, MLB, NFL, everyone) when noting that "the average review takes 42 seconds" or whatever bogus "stat" they cite. I've napped thru some of them and missed nothing.

the fact that you sleep through some of them indicates there is a long tail, and is not mutually exclusive with the average (which is likely the median) being shorter.