Tony Padilla
- Thread starter 2forISU
- Start date
Did you see the baseline camera view? He hip checked the shooter as he stepped by him. It wasn't aggregious and probably shouldn't get called in that situation, but a case can be made.
No, I am telling you the defensive player is not in legal guarding position and this it doesn't matter who initiated the contact.
The offensive player flopped sideways and defensive player moved towards him
That was not a foul. Horrible bail out
Yes, it should. A ref shouldn't have to decide when and when not in the game to call a foul, only if it was or wasn't a foul. The "let the players decide" angle is garbage. The player did decide, he fouled the other guy.
Pretty Sure Padilla is the same ref that Kansas had called the block shot a foul in the first round of the NCAA tourny to let them win when they clearly were going to lose.
I am not trying to defend Padilla, I think he does suck, but sadly there are a lot of refs far worse doing Big 12 games this year.
The common thread that we're seeing here is that the group of old Pac 12 guys that came over are absolutely terrible. Pac 12 ref memes are a thing for a reason.
Padilla has been awful and Greg Nixon was an abomination in Cedar Falls yesterday. Mike Greenstein has been a disaster as well on several occasions.
Randy McCall is the only decent one that's come over.
Padilla has been awful and Greg Nixon was an abomination in Cedar Falls yesterday. Mike Greenstein has been a disaster as well on several occasions.
Randy McCall is the only decent one that's come over.
Top 10 showdown (Houston-ISU) only gets 1 barely in top 15, while ASU-KSU (who cares game) gets 3 in top 11?
I talked to a D1 official on Saturday who is not a fan of Padilla. Unfortunately, the powers that be think he can do no wrong and use him an example to everyone else. That shows you how out of touch those powers are, and how deeply rooted the problem is.
Full disclosure, I'm too pissed about officiating to watch the replay again. But even if the defensive player is moving toward the offensive player, there has to be enough contact to create an advantage -- yes that is a rule in basketball -- and the couple times I watched the replay I didn't see an advantage gained from what little contact there was.
Genuinely curious where that is in the rulebook.
Also, if that’s the case, how did you feel about the Drake/UNI ending in regulation? The ball was well clear of the shooter so there was no advantage to Drake at the time of contact. I believe it was the right call (have to let the player land) but how would the advantage portion of that come into play in your opinion?
Thats a fair point. But the offensive player definitely got knocked off balance. But maybe that was mostly because he was off balance and a little nudge affected him. As a ref, though, if there is contact and the defensive player is not in legal guarding position and the offensive player is impacted, you're likely calling it. I would also argue there was a little advantage. The offensive player would have had a slighly cleaner look at it if he didn't bump into the defender (who was not in legal guarding position).
Another example of "advantage" is every single 3 point play. If a shooter makes the shot, then the foul absolutely created no advantage to the defender. Should all And-1's be disallowed because there was no advantage created?
You must let the shooter land in that case. Not letting him land disadvantages the shooter.
I don't carry my rule and case books around like I used to, but I'll give you a situation that was ALWAYS advantage/disadvantage for me: Rebounding. If there is contact between two players that is not severe, and the player with position gets the rebound anyway, officials don't want to disrupt the flow of the game and potentially stop a fast break. Most coaches understand an appreciate that application. But here is what Google AI says and I think it's decent enough:
In basketball officiating, "advantage/disadvantage" refers to the principle where referees prioritize letting the game flow by not calling fouls or violations unless a player is clearly put at a significant disadvantage by contact or a borderline violation, meaning they should only whistle when the contact meaningfully impacts the ability to play the game; essentially, allowing some minor contact that doesn't give one team an unfair edge over the other.
Key points about advantage/disadvantage in basketball officiating:
- Not all contact is a foul:
Even if there is physical contact between players, the referee will only call a foul if it significantly hinders the offensive player's ability to make a play, putting them at a clear disadvantage.
- Focus on game flow:
By applying the advantage/disadvantage principle, referees aim to minimize stoppages in play and allow for a more fluid game experience.
- Examples of applying the principle:
- A defender might lightly bump an offensive player while guarding them on the perimeter, but if the offensive player can still maintain their dribble and shot opportunity, it's likely not a foul.
- In a rebounding situation, some minor contact between players battling for the ball might be allowed if it doesn't give one player a clear advantage.
- A defender might lightly bump an offensive player while guarding them on the perimeter, but if the offensive player can still maintain their dribble and shot opportunity, it's likely not a foul.
Potential criticisms of advantage/disadvantage officiating:
- Inconsistency:
Some fans might perceive inconsistent officiating if referees interpret "advantage" differently depending on the situation or the players involved. - Difficulty for spectators to understand:
Not all viewers might understand why a referee chooses not to call a foul in a seemingly obvious contact situation, as they might not be aware of the advantage/disadvantage principle.
I agree with all of this, but I’ve had the understanding it’s more of a principle than an actual rule. Which is what makes basketball one of the hardest games to officiate.
The reason I think it’s a principle taught and not a rule explicitly, I went through the NCAA men’s rulebook, and unless it doesn’t use the term “advantage” and uses some other word, I couldn’t find that.
It's funny you mention that last point. Jim Bain -- yes, that Jim Bain for people as old as me -- was a staunch advantage/disadvantage official. I heard him speak at several clinics and he used to always say, "A foul is a severe penalty. They only let you have five before they kick you out." But he used to petition the NCAA rules committee every year to do away with the And-1. He would say if the shooter was able to make the basket anyway, there was no advantage gained.
On the flip side of that, it is why you will sometimes see an official wait to see if a basket goes in or not. He's thinking to himself, I saw marginal contact and if it goes in I'm going to let the play go, if not I'm calling a foul. It frustrates fans, and some coaches, but it gives you an idea of the application of the philosophy.
Now, I think that was somewhat tongue-in-check on his part to make a point. I also think there's another aspect to that: If the shooter was able to fight through that contact and score, he DESERVES the reward of that extra FT shot. I also think taking away the And-1 could result in more rough play. I'm just gonna hammer this guy and if he scores anyway its not a foul on me. I didn't agree with his assertion, but I understood the point he was trying to make.
