Wisconsin - Maryland review vid request.

[bwburke94]

This is quite obviously a flagrant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

1.8 seconds left in the first half. Dead ball contact technical on Maryland, unsportsmanlike technical on Wisconsin result of the play.

Would anyone disqualify the Maryland player involved?

I thought I would show most of the sequence.

Yes I would eject the Maryland player.



Peace

[bballref3966]

Looks like the initial call was a held ball, followed by a CDBTF on Maryland and a CLASS A unsporting T on Wisconsin. Free throws were shot in the correct order (unsporting first, then CDB) and possession was correctly given.

I think a personal foul should've been ruled initially rather than a held ball.

Should've been a flagrant 2 T.

[Camron Rust]

FF2 in my opinion.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by spret93

I corrected my first question. The first 2 free throws were for the shooting foul on Melo's layup that occurred before the technical foul on MD.

I don't think so. But, I haven't checked to boxscore / play-by-play

[spret93]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't think so. But, I haven't checked to boxscore / play-by-play

MD shot 2 for the shooting foul. Then WI shot 2 for the T and got the ball.

Also, MD's Stone was just suspended for the next game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Refhoop]

After going to the monitor: why isn't red #10 also getting a T for dead ball contact?
I'd like to see what would have happened if #10 doesn't shove white #33 in the direction that he's was moving and almost causing him to fall over... Maybe nothing?
My conclusion is that the "head being shoved" doesn't take place without #10 red.
It is more than plausible that 10 red startles 33 white and is somewhat responsible for this mess!
Also, 33 white should have gotten a foul for falling on top of red #30.
Crap happens fast in this game!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Can't believe he said this:

“We had a jump ball. The two players fell to the floor. We had a contact dead ball technical foul against [Stone]. Then we had an unsporting technical foul against [Thomas],” head official DJ Carstensen said after the game. “It was a flagrant one foul. That’s what we deemed it. We say that was a flagrant one contact foul. The ball was dead and there was contact.”

[Nevadaref]

Other than DJ deeming it an FF1 instead of an FF2 his comment sounds rather reasonable to me.

Btw Stone was suspended for Maryland's next game against Minn.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Other than DJ deeming it an FF1 instead of an FF2 his comment sounds rather reasonable to me.

Btw Stone was suspended for Maryland's next game against Minn.

I believe his comment was partially inaccurate because you can't have an FF1 when the ball is dead.

[Nevadaref]

Perhaps, but I think that is being too picky. He clearly said that it was a contact dead ball technical foul. I believe that he then went on to clarify that they considered it to be of the flagrant one level instead of flagrant two to whomever he was speaking. (Most of us disagree with this decision.) Since the officials still need to decide the level when the contact happens during a dead ball, even though the level 1 foul doesn't get named that in the end, I don't have any issue with that way of thinking.
Actually, I believe that the NCAA should change the terminology such that the dead ball contact fouls are labeled as FF1 or FF2. It would make the whole system more consistent and clearer to everyone.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps, but I think that is being too picky. He clearly said that it was a contact dead ball technical foul. I believe that he then went on to clarify that they considered it to be of the flagrant one level instead of flagrant two to whomever he was speaking. (Most of us disagree with this decision.) Since the officials still need to decide the level when the contact happens during a dead ball, even though the level 1 foul doesn't get named that in the end, I don't have any issue with that way of thinking.
Actually, I believe that the NCAA should change the terminology such that the dead ball contact fouls are labeled as FF1 or FF2. It would make the whole system more consistent and clearer to everyone.

It's pretty clear to me. CDBT fouls = F1 technicals. It was annoying at first but at least CDBT sticks out so we don't confuse them with anything else.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

It's pretty clear to me. CDBT fouls = F1 technicals. It was annoying at first but at least CDBT sticks out so we don't confuse them with anything else.

CDBT do NOT equal F1's. an F1 is the HS equivalent of a intentional foul and is for live ball contact. CDBT can be just that a T or a F2. The only difference is the spot the ball is put into play and a player being dq'd.

A flagrant foul 1 ONLY exists as a personal foul. The F2 can be a personal or Technical foul depending on when the contact occurs.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps, but I think that is being too picky. He clearly said that it was a contact dead ball technical foul. I believe that he then went on to clarify that they considered it to be of the flagrant one level instead of flagrant two to whomever he was speaking. (Most of us disagree with this decision.) Since the officials still need to decide the level when the contact happens during a dead ball, even though the level 1 foul doesn't get named that in the end, I don't have any issue with that way of thinking.
Actually, I believe that the NCAA should change the terminology such that the dead ball contact fouls are labeled as FF1 or FF2. It would make the whole system more consistent and clearer to everyone.

If you are to make statements to the press an official, you need to properly address the scenario using the appropriate terms. An F1 is a personal foul that results in 2 shots by the offended players and a throw-in at the spot of the foul. A CDBT is a Class A technical that results in shots by any offended team player and a division line throw-in.

The fact that he jumbled up the rule terminology may have played a part in them not properly ruling this an F2 in the first place.

[Nevadaref]

Uh deecee, he knows. Did you notice that he wrote "F1 technicals"? There is no such animal in the NCAA rulesbook, but that is essentially what a CDBTF is. He and I were discussing the terminology and the merit of the NCAA just renaming the CDBFT an F1 technical foul. I feel that would be a simpler naming system and cause less confusion in communicating the call to the coaches and media. He replied that he had gotten used to the CDBTF nomenclature.