Nova-Kansas 34.1

[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.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by 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.

Considering this type of contact happens in a lot of NCAA games and IS NOT always called a foul, I don't see the logic in your statement. It is a foul, but not one that is always called.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Considering this type of contact happens in a lot of NCAA games and IS NOT always called a foul, I don't see the logic in your statement. It is a foul, but not one that is always called.

I am sorry but I do not see many plays like this not called a foul. Are there plays with a lot of contact not called a foul? Sure, but not like this that I can say "a lot" by any means. There are plays that are close that might not be called, but not many like this I can point to. Now if you have some video evidence of similar plays then I am all good with that one, but I doubt the "a lot" statement you made is very accurate. It also does not matter if it is or isn't called, the issue is should it be called? Yes, it should be called and kind of the point of his post I would think. I know a lot of officials that try to wiggle their way out of not calling things and they are not considered for certain situations for that reason.

Peace

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Considering this type of contact happens in a lot of NCAA games and IS NOT always called a foul, I don't see the logic in your statement. It is a foul, but not one that is always called.

I watch a lot of NCAA games and don't see this contact anywhere near "a lot." And when I do, it's rarely passed on, and I surely wouldn't pass on it if I were the covering official.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Considering this type of contact happens in a lot of NCAA games and IS NOT always called a foul, I don't see the logic in your statement. It is a foul, but not one that is always called.

Can you back this up, because from games I have watched and officiated this gets called.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

lol.