UCF/Duke

[johnny d]

Play 4 is an obvious hook and hold on white 12. Should have been an F1.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Play 4 is an obvious hook and hold on white 12. Should have been an F1.

I do not think that is a hook and hold at all. #12 is the one that puts his arm under the arm of #35, but they do not lock or even prevent movement of the others. That at most would be a regular foul, but even that is a stretch to me.

I have not seen a single "hook and hold" like that called an F1 at the D1 level all year. And I know as a small college official, we tried to avoid that call on plays like this.

Peace

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think that is a hook and hold at all. #12 is the one that puts his arm under the arm of #35, but they do not lock or even prevent movement of the others. That at most would be a regular foul, but even that is a stretch to me.

I have not seen a single "hook and hold" like that called an F1 at the D1 level all year. And I know as a small college official, we tried to avoid that call on plays like this.

Peace

IDK Rut, this looks like a pretty good example of a hook/hold to me. I've definitely seen similar plays called as such. The only difference being the player being held attempting to jump, which didn't happen here because the ball went to other side of the lane.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

IDK Rut, this looks like a pretty good example of a hook/hold to me. I've definitely seen similar plays called as such. The only difference being the player being held attempting to jump, which didn't happen here because the ball went to other side of the lane.

I have seen quite a few of these as well and as the season went on they were making it clear that we do not call any "locked" arms a hook and hold. You have to be restricted and there was little to no restriction here. A foul maybe, but not a hook and hold.

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have seen quite a few of these as well and as the season went on they were making it clear that we do not call any "locked" arms a hook and hold. You have to be restricted and there was little to no restriction here. A foul maybe, but not a hook and hold.

Peace

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

OK. Saw many officials disagree on these all year. I had a similar play this year posted on Synergy and people felt the same kind of contact should not have been called that way. Again they did not look at it and there as not much indicator to make them look. So great that officials after the fact feel that way, I just don't. I would like to hear JD talk about this more than anyone as he has the ear of the NCAA Committee and the interpreters. Maybe this will be voiced or talked about in the future.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Showed the video to 10 D1 officials, all working between 15-40 games a year. Everyone of them said it should have been an F1. I know it is a small sample size, but 10 out of 10 is still pretty significant.

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

IDK Rut, this looks like a pretty good example of a hook/hold to me. I've definitely seen similar plays called as such. The only difference being the player being held attempting to jump, which didn't happen here because the ball went to other side of the lane.

These two plays are almost identical.

One is the Duke Play:



Same kind of look, but they called the foul on the grounded player:



Peace

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

These two plays are almost identical.

To me the Duke play is in fact a hook and hold. I hadn't even noticed this because of the push in the back. The more I see of this game the worse the officiating in this game appears, which is too bad because it was a great game.

[Nevadaref]

Additional information on the FT situation with 7:38 left: Verne Harris came in and told his partner that it was not a shooting foul. That is why 1&1 was administered following the media timeout.

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Any video of this review?

Not much to see or learn from there. Ball didn't obviously hit the rim, the call on the floor stood.

Originally Posted by johnny d

Play 4 is an obvious hook and hold on white 12. Should have been an F1.

Gotta agree with you on this one, this action however brief looked like every video JD put out this year addressing the hook and hold.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Any video of this review?

Originally Posted by AremRed

Not much to see or learn from there. Ball didn't obviously hit the rim, the call on the floor stood.

From what was described, UCF shot was missed (but "grazed" the rim), shot-clock buzzer goes off, play continued as UCF got the rebound and made put-back FG.

The crew stops the game to review if the previous attempt was a shot clock violation.

From what I know, a shot clock review can be done after the original FG is made; they have to stop the game immediately to check if the shot was released in time.

In this case, the original shot was missed but deemed to have hit the rim. The subsequent FG attempt (the 2nd shot) was made by UCF thus making the previous (alleged) shot clock violation non-reviewable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; thanks.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

From what was described, UCF shot was missed (but "grazed" the rim), shot-clock buzzer goes off, play continued as UCF got the rebound and made put-back FG.

The crew stops the game to review if the previous attempt was a shot clock violation.

From what I know, a shot clock review can be done after the original FG is made; they have to stop the game immediately to check if the shot was released in time.

In this case, the original shot was missed but deemed to have hit the rim. The subsequent FG attempt (the 2nd shot) was made by UCF thus making the previous (alleged) shot clock violation non-reviewable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; thanks.

The way I read the rule, they couldn't review if it hit the rim anyway. I don't see anything in the rule that allows the officials to review if a shot hit the rim. Maybe I am missing something that is an interpretation of the rule that was sent out, but I don't see the wording of the rule allowing this review.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The way I read the rule, they couldn't review if it hit the rim anyway. I don't see anything in the rule that allows the officials to review if a shot hit the rim. Maybe I am missing something that is an interpretation of the rule that was sent out, but I don't see the wording of the rule allowing this review.

The shot clock was reset by someone at the table - the officials never signaled to reset the clock. They correctly shut down the play for a monitor review to determine whether a timing error occurred.

Had the SC not been reset, they could've shut things down to review whether a SC violation occurred. You can review on a make, but not a miss.

They did it right.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

The shot clock was reset by someone at the table - the officials never signaled to reset the clock. They correctly shut down the play for a monitor review to determine whether a timing error occurred.

Had the SC not been reset, they could've shut things down to review whether a SC violation occurred. You can review on a make, but not a miss.

They did it right.

From what I understood, the shotclock horn DID audibly sound so it was never reset. The crew believed the FG hit the rim and chose to ignore the horn so play resumed with UCF getting the offensive rebound with an immediate putback.

The crew stops the game for the monitor review for the "alleged" violation on the first FG attempt.

[Matt S.]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

From what I understood, the shotclock horn DID audibly sound so it was never reset. The crew believed the FG hit the rim and chose to ignore the horn so play resumed with UCF getting the offensive rebound with an immediate putback.

The crew stops the game for the monitor review for the "alleged" violation on the first FG attempt.

You're right - the horn did sound. (I just downloaded and watched on Synergy). So I guess the question is, did they not hear the horn?

There's no exact case play for this - you can only correct a SC malfunction in the SC period in which it occurred... this is a tricky one!