Nova-Kansas 34.1
 

Tripping foul called on sliding Kansas player who upends stationary defender while sliding toward loose ball.

I understand the rationale and its basis, just wondering who here would get this at this stage of this type of game?

At least they got the TC part of it right, eventually.

Time and score should be irrelevant to whether or not a foul has occurred.

I dont know how you cannot get this, despite the announcers as usual.

I am not going to contend with a seasoned Elite Eight official's judgment in this case.

The rule is the rule (a player is entitled to his spot on the court provided he gets there first), and as the sideline reporter pointed out not long before this, Bill Self told his players to bust it for every loose ball. This coaching dictum carries risk. See Exhibit A.

I'm sure all three officials knew who fouled and who was fouled, but I loved how they pretended to be unsure so that they could confirm whether or not this was a TC foul. Well done.

You know Im not one to criticize these guys, but I think they should have been able to get the team control correct without going to the monitor.

I think they eventually would have because they huddled before they first went to the monitor. But in this situation, with a confirmation tool at their disposal, why not use it in this very critical situation?

I have been a Jay Hawk fan from birth (my mom is Class of 1942), and I would have made that call.

MTD, Sr.

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.

Here is the video...
 

This is a foul. I do not even know how this is a debate?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lu6p-rklbC8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

From the stands, and announcers, "But it was a LOOSE BALL!"

And that is why we do not listen to them.

Peace

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

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.

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.

What makes you think they went to the monitor to determine whether it was a TC foul, especially since it isn't allowed by rule? There are too many people sitting at the scorer's table and too many microphones around for a crew in a regional final to go to the monitor for an unauthorized reason.

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.

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

Is it possible that some would consider this the same as two players chasing a loose ball from different directions that meet in the middle? That can easily be a no call, even if one goes flying. (Don't penalize a player for being big.) But, in this case, a stationary guy has his feet taken out from under him with a crucial possession at stake. How could it not be a foul?

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.

Amen!!!

Called earlier in this game on Archidiacano
 

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..."

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

I too, agree this is a foul. However, it appears that C was very content to 'play on', and I think everyone would agree that C has the best angle for this play. If T doesn't have a whistle, looks like it might have been a 'play on' scenario.

Will never know for sure, just my observation.....

Ok. Let's break this down:

You say thanks to the officials who don't call this bc that is how you have moved up and hit a better schedule.

I said I didn't see logic there bc to me those two things would not be exclusive, mainly bc I see this not called. I said a lot, which may have been a stretch but it does happen and is not always called, which was my point.

Now several others and you have said it is called and doesn't happen a lot.

It can't be both. It's either called or not. My take was on your post that others not calling it is why you have moved up and gotten better games. Just sounded very snide the way your post came off.

I have seen this called several times. Now does that mean plays like this happen "a lot" as you suggested, that would be overstated IMO. But when I have seen players jump on top go guys or displace them in a scrum, I have seen fouls called on "similar" plays. I rarely see nothing called in these situations.

Yes there was a time we just kind of allowed players to do all kinds of things during a loose ball, but since there have been a lot of video and access to the NCAA sharing their positions, those days are gone. No more VHS tape that you only saw at and NCAA meeting. I would even bet that this play comes up in the NCAA video in the future as an example of a foul that should be called. Just because people did not call it, does not make it right. A lot of officials would pass on obvious "intentional" or "flagrant" fouls, but now it is expected we call more of these in this day and age. With all this focus on head injuries and other dangerous play situations, I think we are in a different era than we once were.

Peace

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

I see fouls and violations not called too. This is blatant, and ya we can miss it here and there. But if your stance is you don't see a foul, then I am thanking you. It's one less rung above me.

Stop right there. This is your break down. deecee's post wasn't meant to be taken logically or seriously, not literally anyway.

I said this in the facebook discussion, but if the T hadn't come to get this, we'd still be discussing this play as one where the C missed it and the T missed a chance to save the crew in transition.

Ruining all the fun :D

I am the world record holder for not being to infer any type of sarcasm in an Internet post. Y'all gotta use blue font.

And I said I agreed it was a foul. I've not deterred from that opinion

Cut and dry - the contact wasn't legal and nowhere is there even an argument that it was an "equally favorable" play. . .

Nice pick-up by Ratstatter from the trail

lol.