Video request: NU/Mich 1-and-1 confusion

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree. The L clearly indicated 2.

I find it interesting that the administering official, being the one who had primary coverage on the drive, thought it was 2. I think there is a good case for arguing that it should have been 2 all along. Perhaps he thought it was obviously a 2 and never say the lead indicate otherwise.

The C didn't even call a foul.

The NCAAM standard is upward motion. If the L said it's before the shot (and he does so VERY CLEARLY), then it's before the shot.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Whether or not it should have been a shooting foul, the Lead clearly wipes off the shot and points to the spot of the foul, so the administering official should have known it wasn't 2 free throws.

Originally Posted by Rich

The C didn't even call a foul.

The NCAAM standard is upward motion. If the L said it's before the shot (and he does so VERY CLEARLY), then it's before the shot.

Absolutely agreed. I'm just trying to put some ideas out there why the C (new L) did end up with 2. He may have checked out for a moment when the L indicated it was before the shot and went with his gut based on what he saw....and was wrong.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

My thoughts from the couch:

I don't like that call coming from the L. I think he should have been more patient and gave the C first crack at that.

The lead saw a foul before the act of shooting began and you want him to wait and whistle it even later?

[ballgame99]

How is that not a shooting foul? He had ended his dribble and was jumping off of one foot when the illegal contact occurred. The jumping foot was still in contact with the floor, but does that matter in college? Under NFHS rules that's an easy shooting foul, is it not?

Moving on, you definitely cannot put this one on a lack of communication on the part of the calling official. He emphatically said no shot and pointed at the floor. The administering official must have just zoned out and because it was clearly a shooting foul just went with it. They have to go to the arrow in this case since all players were told it was 2 shots.

A bad look for sure.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

How is that not a shooting foul? He had ended his dribble and was jumping off of one foot when the illegal contact occurred. The jumping foot was still in contact with the floor, but does that matter in college? Under NFHS rules that's an easy shooting foul, is it not?

Moving on, you definitely cannot put this one on a lack of communication on the part of the calling official. He emphatically said no shot and pointed at the floor. The administering official must have just zoned out and because it was clearly a shooting foul just went with it. They have to go to the arrow in this case since all players were told it was 2 shots.

A bad look for sure.

Was there upward motion at the point where the L thought there was a foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

My thoughts from the couch:

I don't like that call coming from the L. I think he should have been more patient and gave the C first crack at that.

I have no issues of the L calling this as the ball is in the lane when the foul occurs and that is what the L has in the mechanics. He also has more of an open look than the C as it is coming down the lane and towards the end line. The C might see it but is looking through bodies.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I think 2 shots should have been awarded.

I do not think the shooter's upward motion started, which is the standard at the NCAA Men's level. It look like he was still trying to push through and I am not giving shots if I see it that clearly. It was close, but I think he got it right.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

The C, who was obviously the calling official, looks like he's ready to start the clock after the 1st FT so he clearly knew it should have been 1-1. He must not have seen the L indicate 2. But again, its clear that the L did indicate 2 shots.

I am assuming you mean after they are ready to shoot the FTs?

Peace

[Nevadaref]

TW absolutely indicated two shots to the players along the lane before administering the FT.

Someone can post a still photo from the video about the 26 second mark. He holds up two fingers with his right hand next to where the BTN logo is on the screen.

[Raymond]

Whether or not it should have been a shooting foul, the Lead clearly wipes off the shot and points to the spot of the foul, so the administering official should have known it wasn't 2 free throws.

The Lead had no reason to put a whistle on that play. The ball was outside the paint on the C's side of the court, near the free throw line, and the C had an open look on the play. The Lead should have left that play to the C.

[Rich]

Julia Louis-Dreyfus even.

[Rich]

Open looks are important at every level and once the ball's in the paint, the L shouldn't be looking away....

[chapmaja]

As a Michigan fan who was at work officiating volleyball instead of watching the game like I wish I had been, I will comment on this.

First, looking at the replay from above, at about 1:55 of the video, you can the foul is prior to the shot. I think 1-1 is the correct call on this foul.

I think the lead did screw up by signally two shots. NW's player taps the ball to the official, but does not secure possession of the ball after the first / missed attempt. Then the official secures it at which point it is now a dead ball situation.

Since no team had possession of the ball when it become dead, the only recourse was what the officials did, go to the arrow.

This was a screw up by the officials, but also by the players as well. That ball bounced long enough for either team to secure it on a 1-1 situation, and neither did.

The much bigger screw up was with under 2 seconds left. If you have a big guy to put on the inbounder, put him on the inbounder and don't allow the perfect pass that was thrown to allow the layup at the buzzer to beat you.