Video Request: DPF + DTF
 

Wisconsin @ Ohio State, 2/23/17, ESPN, 8:14 2nd Half.

Kelly Pfeifer signals for a double foul against W15 and O1. But I'm pretty sure the ball was dead at the precise moment the DF was called because a goal had just been scored. So wouldn't that be a DTF?

Then as the two players jawed at each other following the initial call, Kelly Pfeifer issues (for real this time) a DTF.

The team foul counts before this whole mess were W5 O6. After, it was W7 O8. So two team fouls were definitely charged to each team.

No ejections, so the initial DF must have been deemed personal, even though it seemed like what Pfeifer reacted to was definitely after the ball was dead.

There was a brief review at the table. Do you suppose the crew bent the truth a little bit on the initial DF so that nobody got ejected? I think it's fair to say that two quick Ts for each player is not what Kelly Pfeifer intended in that situation.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K2ThT5hX4jY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

A case can be made for 13 from Ohio St getting one as well.

By rule the initial double foul should have been double dead ball contact T's. Although I think white is the offender here and red is pulled into the contact.

Why? It started while the ball was still live. I'm OK with a personal double.

I disagree with this statement completely.

Why, they were hooked up and starting to pull on each other before the ball was through the basket. It escalated after, but it certainty started before. In fact, they started smaller holds/pulls on each other with the ball still in the shooter's hands when the shooter was only half-way through the lane.

Could be I see the contact for the call after the ball is through. I still don't know what red did (as white was hooking him) there, and then white goes after red (was something said? maybe). The whole set of events was started and accelerated by white.

I don't have a problem with a DPF called, as it's probably expected. However by rule, and the letter of the law, the contact happened when the ball was dead. In the end I think the red player got the short end of the stick.

It has been discussed when contact started/occurred but not sure what that has to do with anything. Could say there was contact 5 minutes ago between the two. Aren't we really talking about when the official blew his whistle? And to me, he blew it when the ball was dead. I think he picked up the severest portion of the contact late and considered that the ball was still in the air/net and therefore reacted with the double foul mechanic. Or maybe he did see the contact when the ball was live but there was lag time until his whistle and he gave the double foul mechanic intentionally. He then approaches the players and signals the double T. Not enough info to critique to harshly. I would have liked to see either C or T come in there much quicker.

No, it has nothing to do with when the whistle blows.

So, what is "it"?

It's it.

--Faith No More

Don't think so. Only Camron can truly tell us. Maybe deecee as that person disagreed with Camron. Possibly Rich who last questioned my use of "it". But not MD. Faith No More indeed.;)

I think you could justify it as either (personal or technical) because there was contact both before and after the ball became dead. Just because the whistle came after doesn't mean that the contact that triggered the call did. Or, perhaps the official saw the initial contact occurring before the ball became dead, was going to pass, but decided to call it after it escalated. He had a choice in determining what was the actual foul. In this case, I don't think he'd be wrong either way.

This is probably the truth according to Kelly Pfeifer.

Paradox: I feel that if I called this exact same scenario in the exact same manner at a college tryout camp, I wouldn't get hired. Why is that?