Iowa vs. Cincinnati (Video)
 

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z3-6LLfqq4w" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Likely more videos to come in this game.

Peace

The travel is more obvious than the potential foul.

The initial contact to the hand is clean because it's on the ball. Pulling the hand down afterwards makes it look like a possible foul. But I'm sure the big man who had his shot blocked did not complain b/c he would want to be allowed that same contact when he's on defense.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

To me I have a foul on this play. The initial contact may be on the ball, but the shooter still has possession of the ball under the contact on the hand. Had the contact with the ball caused the loss of possession I am not calling a foul, but since the shooter retained possession and only lost possession with the contact, I'm calling a foul.

I do not have a foul on this play. There was one contact and it was with the hand on the ball. It doesn't become a foul just because the ball then separated from the hand with the contact being the same as before.

I agree. *Maybe* if the contact continued and prevented the (original) offensive player from reaching for the ball.

Doesn't it? His hand is going backward because it is being pulled down by the defenders hand.

I would need to seem some effort on the part of the offensive player that was being hindered here -- I don't see that.

I like the no foul.