|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[B]Jim Burr (R) was the C in this play and I think it was Mark Whitehead (U1-?) was the T in this play.
The C and T were in good positions for this 3 pt attempt and normally, the T is primary for the 3pt attempt from were it was attempted. But the T was screened by a UK-2 player and the C was straigt lined with respect to MSU-1 defending against the shooter (UK-1). The C signaled a 3 pt attempt immediately upon the release by UK-1.
I think that MSU-1 could have been called for a foul against UK-1, BUT, I think the correct call was to not call a foul because the C did not have the best look at it.
----------------------------------------------
I'm glad to see this comment made. I'd be interested to see what the discussion would have been like among the regulars here if TubbyFanBoy had never shown up to cry foul on the last play. I'm not sure that his antics have not colored some people's judgment on the play. Maybe not, but we'll certainly never know now.
I think it was a foul. That Sparks initiated the contact is inconsequential; the defender (Torbert?) did not have legal guarding position. He was attempting to challenge the shot, and he never established a legal guarding position before bumping Sparks. Beyond that, Sparks did not lunge at him; he leaned forward very, very slightly. In fact, had there been no contact at all, his shooting motion would have been fairly characterized as very nearly normal.
The more important point, though, is what Mark brought up. Burr had as good a look as possible at the feet, but he was in a stacked position on the contact. Unfortunately for Whitehead, he had gotten himself stacked by Kentucky's #2. I'm not even sure what kind of look he had at Sparks's feet. My guess is little to none. Anyway, given the closed look each had at the play, I'm glad there was no guessing. Sometimes we guess right, but I don't think we ever guess well.
I thought a job very well done by the crew.
|