Technical given to coach (Video)
 

Also the play that appeared to get the Gonzaga coach upset.

Play:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lhm05Tfef50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Without knowing all the particulars of fouls called/no-called previously to this play, I initially would say this was a foul. The BYU #12 left arm/hand is down on the Gonzaga player's drive and re-routes him. If this type of foul was called earlier, then Coach Few as an argument to be made. The Class A Tech was a obvious to me because Coach Few was on the court of play.

The Lead rotates over and the Gonzaga drive starts immediately. I've heard McCall state that calling a foul by the Lead during a rotation (except for an obvious crash) is a bad look because usually you don't have the big picture of the play having just positioning yourself there. It definitely is a tough play from a play and physical standpoint.

Clear foul.

Eh. I'm not calling that. If a player wants to take the worst possible route and go the last place he should be trying to go, I need more than that to bail him out.

This is not necessarily a scoring route, but it has become a significant part of many offenses, especially at the college level. His intent is to make a pass across the end line to the player spotting up for a 3 on the other side. The pass he attempted after being fouled that was intercepted. An argument can be made that the bump disrupted the timing of the play and caused the turnover. Also, even if he was trying to use this as a scoring drive and trying to get to a bad place, this is exactly the kind of play NCAA-M officials have been directed repeatedly the last couple of years to clean up.

If I'm the L, I'm thinking I have a foul on that for the textbook hand check.

That's a foul depending on how the game had been called up to that point. However that contact didn't lead to the turnover.

From the angle in the video, I don't see a foul. I'm not saying there isn't one but I wouldn't make a foul call from the angle available. His arm appear to be tucked in against his own body until he pulled it out an up. Given a view from the endline or the other side, I could easily change my mind.

While I'd likely have a foul on this play, it doesn't seem like something worth getting all worked up over and earning a tech.

+1

Defender bites on the initial fake. After contact, offensive player can do nothing but pass, which results in a TO. If L calls a foul, literally nothing incorrect or bad happens. Only person that would be mad with that call is the defender because he knew he fell for the fake.

I don't see anything either from this angle. I see some acting, but not much else.

The defender doesn't have LGP and clearly impedes the ball handler.

Him choosing that path means nothing to me. The defender isn't legal.

When I see a player throw his head back, when the supposed contact was on his torso - in this case on his left shoulder - I'm immediately aware that the player is trying to convince me that the contact was more than he or I perceived. If the supposed contact had been sufficient to disturb his rsbq, his torso would have been turned, to some extent, away from that contact. I don't see that.
And then, the ballhandler makes the pass towards his teammate with his left hand, the hand on the side that supposedly received the contact from the defender. Not great acting, and to use a boxing term, the defender "slipped the punch" - that is, the contact that almost occurred, of the left shoulders of the two players = a good no-call.
JMHO

If all that goes through your head in the split-second you have to make a call, then you are an official savant.

Try it some time...it isn't that hard. :D

Didn't have LGP??? LGP is one of the few things I'm sure of form the video. I feel he clearly had it and moved laterally afterwards to maintain it. Perhaps he lost it at the last second as the shooter starts to get by him...is that what you're saying?

Yes.

If he has LGP doesn't the offense have to get head and shoulders by?

Not when the defender sticks his arm out.

I agree completely with this. If a call was made it wouldnt have bothered me but I'm likely not putting a whistle on this play for the reasons mentioned above. And I guess Few has a legit beef if similar handchecks were called earlier in the game but to get that upset over a marginal no call seems odd to me.

It really isnt that hard. The more plays you see the quicker your mind can process this things. When people talk about "seeing the whole play" they are talking about processing the types of things Rob alluded to above.

It seemed like a lot, but upon re-reading the post it's not a lot of information to ponder before making a call /non-call.

Like.... Did the defender exaggerate the contact on a possible charge? Did the ball handler try for a shot or pass when fouled?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Yup. Written out it seemed like more than it was but it was really just processing 2 things.

And again, the more plays we see the better, and quicker, we are able to process this stuff.

Eh, I think it's a foul, others don't. The guy standing there didn't. Few got whacked.

I don't think it's as clear cut either way as some here are making it to be.

Must mean it's time to unsubscribe to the thread, as it's boring me now. :)

Agree. I don't see a foul, but, like I said earlier, I'm not claiming there wasn't one either.

It was certainly not the play where Few should have reacted the way he did. Any contact that was there didn't cause the player to throw that ball away like he did.

This, this, this.

It appears to me the contact is shoulder to shoulder but if his hand does get in there I agree.

Hard to tell from this angle, to be honest.

I agree, I didn't even notice the hand the first time. I had to rewatch after you brought it up.

Whether this should be called a foul is obviously debatable, but whether this is a T hasn't been. I think its a great T and I would like to see more called at the college level. Maybe some of that would rub off on some of these HS coaches. But probably not.

I don't think it's being debated because it's clearly and obviously a warranted T. You say you'd like to see it called more, but I doubt you can find an instance of a coach this out of control where it was not called.

I think the T is absolutely the correct call, but I will add this. I don't think this call was the only reason Few got T'ed up. It was a debatable call, but coaches generally don't get that worked up on just a single call or non-call. This was very likely the continuation of several discussions with the officials, or the fact Few saw his team losing its edge and needed to do something to motivate the team.