It was a correct call, but the Kansas player was fouled on his dribble, which was why he lost control of the ball in the first place.

I don't think they were deceptive, but I wouldn't cheer them off I did.

This call should be made every time. You can't take a player's legs out just because you dove for a "lose ball". Diving and sliding may be immune from a travel, but the defender was still in position to retrieve that ball and Kansas took his legs out. If he did that from behind, you wouldn't question it, but the rule is the same.

Watching the replay I can see why they would have looked to determine if this was a TC foul or not. It is pretty close on the 'Nova player having possession of the ball when the contact is made that ultimately results in the Kansas player regaining control (and getting the foul call).

This was the correct call on the play. Given the importance of the game and the time of the game.

I did not watch the game. What did they finally rule, TC or not TC on the play. When making the initial call the calling official clearly indicates a 1 and 1 for 'Nova on this play.

If you look at the video, it appears the official says immediately this is a 1 and 1. Then the officials get together and rule it was a TC foul. They even went to the monitor which I believe was to give them time to discuss the situation (just a hunch).

Peace

That was my thought - he got fouled by both Nova players.

Which official made the call? If he and Doug Sirmons from the Gonzaga game aren't working next weekend, we'll perhaps know why.

Oh - and hi everyone after like two years without posting :D

My first thought was he was fouled before losing control, but when you watch in slow mo, the guy to his right does not make contact, or if there is contact it is very slight contact and was after he pushed the ball forward. The defender to his left does make some contact with the Kansas player, but it is after he had already knocked the ball forward and that contact also was slight contact.

In real time speed I am shocked the officials did not call a foul on Villanova for the first contact, but in my opinion they clearly got that call correct as well.

The simple fact is the Kansas player is the one who lost control and it was not caused by contact from an opponent.

Actually he wasn't. In real time it looks like he was, however upon slow motion review neither player has contact that is either significant or impacted the loss of control by the Kansas player. I am shocked it was not called, but they got the call correct on all fronts.

Agreed. It would be a rough night for a crew who let this "slide by" without a call:rolleyes:

As far as officiating is concerned, what does the bolded part mean? The Villanova player bent over to get the ball, touched the ball first, and ended up on the ground due to the contact from Graham.

Also, how does Graham get to the spot first if the Villanova player was already standing there?

Easy call. No slide tackles allowed. I was also surprised it took them so long to determine it was a team control foul but they got there which is all that matters.

I was watching the other game yesterday for a few minutes and saw a similar play NOT called. I was more surprised at the no call than I was at this call, seeing it here.

I didn't mean to imply earlier that the officials were being deceptive in their monitor use. Plain and simple, they had a confirmation tool at their disposal, and the calling official initially signaled 1-and-1. Critical juncture, so why not buy some time by confirming the fouler/foulee and getting the penalty administration 100% correct in the process? I think most assignors would applaud a liberal application of monitor utility in this case.

PA coach, you'd be surprised how easy it is to forget to consider TC on loose ball fouls in bonus situations. For some reason we officials often seem rushed to go shoot free throws before confirming whether the opposing team had gained control. All the more reason to slow down, reconstruct the play in our head, and talk to our partners if necessary. I never get upset with a coach who asks me to consider TC in a bonus situation; it's a fair question. Unfortunately, most coaches don't have the rules knowledge or presence of mind to make this appeal.

They could have legitimately lost the potential shooter or fouled player. Again the calling officials signaled 1 and 1 immediately. If a partner comes to him, he might have not been sure who he fouled if there was any doubt.

Peace

For those of you that think this isn't a foul (and assuming you are officials), I would like to say thank you. It's because of judgement like that I have gotten where I have and continue to get better games and move up.

Keep doing what you are doing.

IF you are not an official, then that's good, because you would be wrong.