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

[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.

[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 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.

[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?

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes that was Julie Ann Dreyfus. She has a daughter that goes to school there. Ironically one of my friends met her as her daughter is also going there and they are both in the same class.

Even bigger connection: The son of Julia Louis-Dreyfus and comedian Brad Hall is on the NU team.

[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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

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

I don't understand your confusion. Its a play that is in the C's primary. I'm suggesting the L have more of a patient whistle.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I think the C has a great unobstructed look at the time of contact and again just think the L should have been more patient in going into the C's primary for this. JMO.

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.

I can live with that. I just have a different opinion.

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

Yes, if the C saw the L indicate 2 as they were about to administer the FT, he should have blown the whistle for a reset to get it right. Obviously, he didnt see it.

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.

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.

Yes, the calling official indicated very clearly that it was a non-shooting foul. So the new L just must have lost track. It happens.

But agree completely on the L's whistle. I don't mind him coming in later but he doesnt appear to give the C a chance to ref the play right in his lap.

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.

Obviously, if the official blows their whistle and wipes off the shot then that's what we have.

I'm just offering my opinion from the couch that I don't agree with it. I think its the Cs play all the way and would prefer that the L be more patient. And on this type of play, I'd prefer to award 2 shots to the offense. Again, JMO.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't understand your confusion. Its a play that is in the C's primary. I'm suggesting the L have more of a patient whistle.



I think the C has a great unobstructed look at the time of contact and again just think the L should have been more patient in going into the C's primary for this. JMO.



I can live with that. I just have a different opinion.



Yes, if the C saw the L indicate 2 as they were about to administer the FT, he should have blown the whistle for a reset to get it right. Obviously, he didnt see it.



Yes, the calling official indicated very clearly that it was a non-shooting foul. So the new L just must have lost track. It happens.

But agree completely on the L's whistle. I don't mind him coming in later but he doesnt appear to give the C a chance to ref the play right in his lap.



Obviously, if the official blows their whistle and wipes off the shot then that's what we have.

I'm just offering my opinion from the couch that I don't agree with it. I think its the Cs play all the way and would prefer that the L be more patient. And on this type of play, I'd prefer to award 2 shots to the offense. Again, JMO.

Except they're being held to a much more strict standard in college men's -- no benefit of the doubt going to the shooter certainly.

Lead is king.

[HokiePaul]

A little off topic, but are the college administration of FTs different than NFHS?

The lead made the call and appears then go switch with the C opposite table and the C administers the FT.

In NFHS, the calling official is staying tableside as T and T is administering these FTs

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

A little off topic, but are the college administration of FTs different than NFHS?

The lead made the call and appears then go switch with the C opposite table and the C administers the FT.

In NFHS, the calling official is staying tableside as T and T is administering these FTs

Yes, the calling official goes opposite the table.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Yes, the calling official goes opposite the table.

... in NCAAM. NCAAW is the same as FED (in this instance, and recognizing that some states have the calling official go opposite in HS).

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I don't understand your confusion. Its a play that is in the C's primary. I'm suggesting the L have more of a patient whistle.

If the L waits longer, then calls a foul before the act of shooting, he is going to have a problem.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

If the L waits longer, then calls a foul before the act of shooting, he is going to have a problem.

This wasn't a do-or-die play, the Lead should just leave it alone.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk