Michigan @ Ohio State (Video)
 

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nuSWfmD_AKA" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ptu_0KM-2_8" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #3:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WScUO9dUkas" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

1) Not necessary
2) BC violation as there was no defensive tip
3) Travel

Why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. In fact, you could say he traveled twice. He dragged the pivot foot quite a ways before picking it up and and then stepping with it.

If the referee knew it was a try, then the hold didn't create an advantage (and it's not one of the automatic fouls).

But, it looked to me like the post player was calling for the ball and the referee thought it was a pass.

Or, maybe he was just trying to clean up the post play (depending on what had been happening and whether they had talked to the players prior to this).

Of course #1 was necessary. It was Teddy V making the call.

Got to be something obvious. Why two shots? Were they in double bonus?

That’s the only way, barring any sort of flagrant foul, that they could have two shots there, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1) Not needed.

2) DIdn't watch that one.

3) Is a travel by NFHS and NCAA rule. Everywhere else in the world they want us by rule to be letting that one go now.

#1 is not a call you want to make at a camp. The ball went in the basket, so there was no advantage, and the contact wasn't severe enough to warrant a "clean-up" whistle.

I'm sure Teddy wishes he could have it back.

1. I have no issues with the call or who called it. I think considering all the video they show about rebounding contact, that was a good foul. And if there had been a retaliation and you did not call the first foul, then there would have been other issues. You have no idea what is going to happen with the ball.

2. I just showed this because people think because the rule has changed all contact situations with the ball are OK. And the coach was complaining as if it was last year apparently.

3. I thought it was a travel when it happened.

Peace

On #1, are any of you calling this if the rebound goes away? I usually would let this go unless the was a short rebound to that side.

1) With all the emphasis on rebounding plays and all the videos the NCAA has put out, I have no problem with the call. If that got sent into a coordinator, I am not sure I'd be able to explain a no call on the grab and pull on the waist when I got the "Why wasn't this called?" phone call?

2) No brainer.

3) Travel.

Michigan was in the bonus according to the scoreboard on the screen. And the shooter shot a one and one. ????

-- If that play, as called, got sent into my supervisor(s), I would get chastised for not having play awareness nor a patient whistle.

-- I'm betting Teddy wants that call back.

There is a big part of that equation. We are not Teddy Valentine a multiple Final Four official. He has the ability to do things we would get questioned on depending on who we work for. I just watched the NCAA Video where they JD Collins discussed post play and calls and this call fits in that area. That is why I am OK with the call because a lot less was advocated to be called by the NCAA and JD Collins. I might be in the minority in this position, but I bet it was supported and probably something he was trying to address earlier in the game.

Peace

I agree. The JD Collins videos contain contact that is so marginal that they want called. They are trying their best to hammer home freedom of movement (period).

In a couple years it will be something else, and so on and so forth.

DC -

Very good.....this is the only answer on this thread that really matters !!!!!

Play #2: The resumption of play inbound pass should have been at the 28-foot demarcation line of Michigan' frontcourt.

You mean the out of bounds throw-in spot?

Peace

Yes, that is what I meant.

No it should not have. Think about what the rule says, and who the violation is on.

That is not quite what the rules state. Rule 7-3-2c says:

Since this was a violation as stated in 7-3-1a says:

Peace

Per the NCAA MEMORANDUM
November 20, 2017
Page No. 6

5. Art Hyland, Secretary-Rules Editor comments.
c. Throw-ins (Rule 7-3 and 7-4). The following throw-in provisions are in effect immediately:

(2) Backcourt.

When the offensive team commits an offensive foul or violation (including causing the ball to be out of bounds) or the defense is awarded the ball after a held ball, the throw-in for the defensive team (now becomes the offense) will be at the closest of the four spots using the line of demarcation.

Frontcourt throw-ins after a violation are done at the one of the 4 designated throw-in spots. That has been part of the pre-game for every college game I've done this season.

My bad, I did not read your original post carefully enough to notice the word Michigan's. That makes a big difference, having missed that key word, I thought you were saying the throw in should be at the 28 foot line in the back court.

And yes, I was aware of the updated memo from Art.

I had the same question. Looks like the television scoreboard was not updated quickly enough. The rebounding foul was the 7th on Michigan.