KU MD reviewing after a ft

[thedewed]

on the play with Graham on offense, can they then review after he shoots a ft? Anyone know? so he drives, he gets fouled, but before he is fouled he elbows someone else, they don't realize it, Graham shoots 1 ft then they look at it.

[crosscountry55]

I'm going to "case-a-size" this for the broader audience because I'm interested, too. Standing by for an NCAAM certified opinion:

A1 drives to the basket and in the process brings a forearm high that strikes B1 in the face, but the officials do not see the contact. As the drive concludes, B2 fouls A1 in the act of shooting an unsuccessful try. Following A1's successful first free throw, Team B's coach requests that the officials use the monitor to review the possible Flagrant 1 Personal Foul on A1.

What are the possible outcomes at this point?

[johnny d]

They cannot review this play, the time frame for doing so has passed.

When officials error and fail to observe the flagrant foul, they are permitted to correct and penalize the infraction using the monitor as follows:

When the game clock was running, it must be corrected during the first dead ball after the clock was properly stopped. The first dead ball was before the first free throw. After the first free throw, they were at the second dead ball, and should not have gone to the monitor.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by johnny d

They cannot review this play, the time frame for doing so has passed.



When officials error and fail to observe the flagrant foul, they are permitted to correct and penalize the infraction using the monitor as follows:



When the game clock was running, it must be corrected during the first dead ball after the clock was properly stopped. The first dead ball was before the first free throw. After the first free throw, they were at the second dead ball, and should not have gone to the monitor.

Thanks. They (almost habitually) went to the monitor, but ultimately did nothing and I think it was because they realized exactly what you described above, i.e., too late.

So the coach was late in his inquiry. Does he get charged a timeout?

Announcers, as usual, were clueless. Although the officials did not provide them an explanation as they often do.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Thanks. They (almost habitually) went to the monitor, but ultimately did nothing and I think it was because they realized exactly what you described above, i.e., too late.

So the coach was late in his inquiry. Does he get charged a timeout?

Announcers, as usual, were clueless. Although the officials did not provide them an explanation as they often do.

The coach wouldn't, or shouldn't, get charged a TO for the officials error.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by deecee

The coach wouldn't, or shouldn't, get charged a TO for the officials error.

That's not what I was implying. I was asking if there's a rule for charging a TO when an otherwise legitimate request for a monitor review is made outside of the allowable timeframe. I'm thinking along the lines of the NFHS correctable errors rule.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by paxsonref

You might want to think about this again...has the time frame passed? Note the line you quoted, "after the clock was properly started". In this play, yes, we had live ball/dead ball during the free throws, but the clock never properly started, and won't until the throw in (or a touch after a missed second free throw). Therefore, this can still be reviewed.

"Started" is not what he said. Read closely.

[paxsonref]

good catch...was reading the correctable error section...you would think they could make them the same to make it easier? nah...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by paxsonref

good catch...was reading the correctable error section...you would think they could make them the same to make it easier? nah...

The nature of the errors explains the difference for me.

[thedewed]

A follow up. For those that saw the play, if they had caught it in time, do you think the elbow by the ball handler Graham rose to the level that it would have been a flagrant one? The ball handler when accelerating past the defender in the paint used his arm in a clearing motion and got it high enough that it inadvertently caught the defender in the head, and he went down. Accidental, but clearly contact.

and a related question , has the emphasis on paying particular attention to contact to the head, even when inadvertent, been lessened? I'm not aware that it has been, but am being told this.

Thanks,

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A follow up. For those that saw the play, if they had caught it in time, do you think the elbow by the ball handler Graham rose to the level that it would have been a flagrant one? The ball handler when accelerating past the defender in the paint used his arm in a clearing motion and got it high enough that it inadvertently caught the defender in the head, and he went down. Accidental, but clearly contact.

and a related question , has the emphasis on paying particular attention to contact to the head, even when inadvertent, been lessened? I'm not aware that it has been, but am being told this.

Thanks,

Had it been reviewed in time, I think they would have called it. I have seen no lessening of FF1s on head contact such as this.

So let's say they did review it in time. Would that cancel the subsequent shooting foul since the ball would otherwise have become dead with the FF1? If not, what is the penalty administration sequence post-review?

[thedewed]

Good questions. Would someone e that should know weigh in? Thx