Wisconsin - Maryland review vid request.
 

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'm at the game..... He should have been tossed. Pushed the guy's head into the floor.
I was confused why MD shot 2 and then WI shot 2 FT's... Shouldn't they have canceled?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, my mistake. Melo was shooting 2 for a shooting foul before the Tech happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Video: https://twitter.com/redshellradio/st...63506808328193


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do DBCT and unsporting offset in NCAAM? They do not in NCAAW (I don't think).

I thought it should have been a FF2. Shoved his head pretty hard into the court. Not a basketball play and unnecessary and excessive contact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't see the play or watch above post but TV said that one of refs explained to them that bc he used an open hand, it wasn't an FF2. Said a punch would have been automatic. I don't think I agree but maybe that is a distinction?

No they do not offset.

With double Ts in NCAA, if the penalty for one of them has possession attached then both teams shoot and the ball is awarded to the "victims" of the more severe foul.

So shoving someones head onto the court is "ok". Awful explanation.

I can see using the distinction of an closed first vs open hand to say it doesn't qualify as a fight, but it doesn't have to be a fight to be flagrant.

I'm guessing the BIG will at least advise their officials that this should have been ruled flagrant. Would love to see a suspension handed down, too, but I've got a vested interest in that outcome.

Had a this in a game. We shot at both ends and division line TI for dead ball contact.

Oh, and that was flagrant IMO.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

So if they don't offset (and I agree they don't), then I have to go back to spret's posts about what FTs were being shot and ask whether they administered it incorrectly or spret posted incorrectly.

I will do my best to post these videos later tonight. I am not at home and worked a game. Hope all is well this Valentine's Day. ;)

Peace

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is quite obviously a flagrant.

I thought I would show most of the sequence.

Yes I would eject the Maryland player.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/14GsdgTaBI4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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.

FF2 in my opinion.

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

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I seriously doubt it had an impact on the decision made on the court to not disqualify the offending player. He was merely making the point to the media that it was a level 1 offense, not a level 2.

I still think that there are too many classifications for fouls in the NCAA book. Streamline it by going with either level 1 & level 2 or class a & class b for all types of fouls which aren't normal fouls. I don't understand why the same system can't apply to both personal and technical fouls.

I think at one point it did. Then they switched F1 T to CDBT. Or, maybe I'm mis-remembering.

And, while his comments could be criticized if it was some written response or he had time to edit, or was an article in RefMag, etc. -- we all use some shortcuts or slightly incorrect nomenclature when speaking / teaching. Shouldn't happen, but the meaning was pretty clear.

What Nevada said. I'm well aware F1s only exist as live-ball fouls in the NCAA universe. When the terminology was changed a few years ago the way I remembered a CDBT was to think, "Oh, it's an F1 technical."

Why not?

Contact that would be and FF1 during a live ball becomes a T during a dead ball. Because it happens during a dead ball, it becomes a T. If it is not enough for an FF1, it is not enough for a dead ball contact T.

Because FF1 is LIVE ball only. Dead ball you have a "contact dead ball T" or unsporting T. you can have dead ball FF2 but not 1.

Also the resumption of play for a FF versus T is different.

Why not? Because the foul chart at the back of the NCAA rule book makes pretty clear that a flagrant 1 foul is a live ball personal foul.

There is no such thing as an FF1 technical. If some officials think of it that way, fine, but it's still not the correct terminology. It's not like NFHS where an intentional foul can be personal or technical.

The point is that when contact that would be a FF1 during a live ball occurs, it should be ruled a technical during a dead ball. If it doesn't rise to the level of a FF1, it is generally not enough to be called (at least not for the contact itself).