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

[Amesman]

Can someone (Rut?) post the sequence around that Michigan FTA late in the second half where none of the players move on the front-end miss? Maybe 4-5 minutes to go in the game.

I recall C raising his hand to chop in a possible miss but would like to see how everything was handled before and during, with signaling 1-and-1 (not 2 shots), etc. Players definitely blew it, and Michigan got ball back on the arrow.

Of course the commoners' belief is that the officials somehow blew it. Sigh.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Can someone (Rut?)

LOL!!! It does seem like I am the only one doing this. But I can do this so I will.

Originally Posted by Amesman

Of course the commoners' belief is that the officials somehow blew it. Sigh.

I actually thought Steven Bardo actually did not rip the officials. He basically said that Northwestern should have been alert. But the question is what did the administering official say in the lane.

He looks like he thinks it is two shots by the way he enters the lane.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Here is the video.



Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Here is the video.

Peace

He clearly signaled 2 before the free throw.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

He clearly signaled 2 before the free throw.

I did not see a clear signal. I saw something that looks like he signaled two shots, but that is not seeing his hand in total. Either way, he clearly did not ask for sure and the calling official did not make sure he had the right situation. This is certainly what happens when you do not communicate properly or observe.

Peace

[Amesman]

Thanks, Rut. Definitely an ouch moment for crew. That "2 shots" signal is clear as L backs out of the lane.

And you're right about Bardo. He was really pretty on it, as was the other announcer who said it would be a 1-and-1 right after the call.

I remember Collins mouthing "But we got the rebound!" which I thought was bogus at the time, but turns out to be true in the most technical of senses, though it was still an actionless rebounding scenario.

By the way, my "commoners" comment was about the officemates. I was their interpreter today.

It's been a long season for Mr. Wymer. Clearly signals 2 shots. Too bad Szelc or Steretore couldn't catch it.

It's been a rough season for the B1G staff. Michigan State vs. Florida Gulf Coast clock starting early, Indiana vs. Purdue blarge, this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

It's been a long season for Mr. Wymer. Clearly signals 2 shots. Too bad Szelc or Steretore couldn't catch it.

It's been a rough season for the B1G staff. Michigan State vs. Florida Gulf Coast clock starting early, Indiana vs. Purdue blarge, this.

I wouldn't put the blarge in that category. It's not a great thing, but it's hardly the end of the world: even if it ends up fouling out two players with one call.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Can someone (Rut?) post the sequence around that Michigan FTA late in the second half where none of the players move on the front-end miss? Maybe 4-5 minutes to go in the game.

I recall C raising his hand to chop in a possible miss but would like to see how everything was handled before and during, with signaling 1-and-1 (not 2 shots), etc. Players definitely blew it, and Michigan got ball back on the arrow.

Of course the commoners' belief is that the officials somehow blew it. Sigh.

They did blow it. Monster mistake for a crew of that caliber.

[hamnegger]

Was that Elaine from Seinfeld? It shows how everyone can lose focus and screw up. There is a human element to our profession that can't be fixed. I wonder if there are any ramifications from their assignor/evaluator.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

Was that Elaine from Seinfeld? It shows how everyone can lose focus and screw up. There is a human element to our profession that can't be fixed. I wonder if there are any ramifications from their assignor/evaluator.

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.

Peace

[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.

[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.

[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 think 2 shots should have been awarded.

He clearly signals 2 shots before putting the ball at the disposal of the FT shooter.

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.

[Camron Rust]

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 think 2 shots should have been awarded.

He clearly signals 2 shots before putting the ball at the disposal of the FT shooter.

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.

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.