Nova-Kansas 34.1

[thedewed]

A horrible call. Whether DG had control of the ball didn't matter, because Nova never got control, so was still in team control. So you penalize a kid for diving for a loose ball who gets there first, while the foulee doesn't even go to the ground to recover? Terrible call, sorry.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A horrible call. Whether DG had control of the ball didn't matter, because Nova never got control, so was still in team control. So you penalize a kid for diving for a loose ball who gets there first, while the foulee doesn't even go to the ground to recover? Terrible call, sorry.

Yes you do when that kid takes out another kid that legally got to his spot on the floor. Just cause you dive does not absolve you from contacting a legal player.

This a foul every day and twice on Easter Sunday.

Peace

[NNJOfficial]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes you do when that kid takes out another kid that legally got to his spot on the floor. Just cause you dive does not absolve you from contacting a legal player.



This a foul every day and twice on Easter Sunday.



Peace

Amen!!!

[CallMeMrRef]

Arch dove for a loose ball near midcourt early in the first half and was called for a foul as he took out the Kansas players legs in diving to get the ball. I remember thinking - great hustle, but stupid foul - unless he thought "they don't call those fouls in this game..."

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by CallMeMrRef

Arch dove for a loose ball near midcourt early in the first half and was called for a foul as he took out the Kansas players legs in diving to get the ball. I remember thinking - great hustle, but stupid foul - unless he thought "they don't call those fouls in this game..."

@Jrutledge, can we get a video of this play from earlier in the game?

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A horrible call. Whether DG had control of the ball didn't matter, because Nova never got control, so was still in team control. So you penalize a kid for diving for a loose ball who gets there first, while the foulee doesn't even go to the ground to recover? Terrible call, sorry.

So, removing the diving from the equation....Graham runs down a loose ball and then immediately runs over a stationary, legal defender. Still a bad call?
Labeling it as "penalizing hustle" is an egregious mischaracterizing of the rule.

[SNIPERBBB]

There was a big emphasis at the high school level a few years back to make these calls. Players were acting like it was a license to kill if the ball was loose and bodies were going to the floor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A horrible call. Whether DG had control of the ball didn't matter, because Nova never got control, so was still in team control. So you penalize a kid for diving for a loose ball who gets there first, while the foulee doesn't even go to the ground to recover? Terrible call, sorry.

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.

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

A horrible call. Whether DG had control of the ball didn't matter, because Nova never got control, so was still in team control. So you penalize a kid for diving for a loose ball who gets there first, while the foulee doesn't even go to the ground to recover? Terrible call, sorry.

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?

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

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 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

[deecee]

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.