UCF/Duke
 

At 11:02 in the second half is a great example of the backcourt exception on throw-ins. Officiated correctly and a straightforward play if you know the rules, but something plenty of people would grumble about.

There are probably other plays as well but I haven't watched much.

7:38 second half. Foul or good block?

Wow that review for the shot clock is almost impossible.

Peace

I did not realize you were allowed to review whether the ball hit the rim or not. I knew you could review whether the shooter got it off in time.

14 seconds left, foul on Fall. What did he do wrong?

Full disclosure, I am a Duke hater.

You’re not, which is why I’m confused and trying to figure out what, exactly, they were reviewing. Also disappointed (but not surprised) that Steratore did not raise this point. He acted as if the judgment call of whether it the rim was a reviewable play.

Last minute of game (Video request)
 

UCF alum in need of unbiased opinion!

On the play where Fall fouls out, did Taylor draw a PC that should have been called? Then, was Fall vertical?

On the rebound and put back of the missed free throw that put Duke up by 1, did the rebounder displace Dawkins, who went flying thru the lane abnormally?

Appreciate the non-biased review.

He was grounded in the restricted area when the contact with Zion occurred. This is an automatic blocking foul. He needs to either jump or get out of the RA.

I thought he jumped. Oh well.

Zion drive final seconds
 

NO PC on Zion on the drive with 17 seconds left before the Taco foul? Thoughts?

REALLY not allowed to review if shot hit the rim?

Seems like a lot of No PC calls on Zion

He said they were checking to see if it was a shot clock operator error for resetting the shot clock incorrectly.

Foul.

But the officials turned it into a 1-and-1 during the break somehow. Missed the front end and play went on

That's the kind of mistake that will likely cost them S16 assignments.

That rule you are referring to is used in an instance where the shot clock was reset and the officials feel it definitively should not have been. If they felt the initial shot didn’t hit the rim, then it was an obvious shot clock violation on review because black #15 got the rebound and had both hands on the ball and hadn’t left the ground for the putback yet when it hit 0. Still puzzled.

Definite push in the back late on the Zion missed FT. 2 hands in the back, Dawkins goes flying to the other side of the rim, and immediately complains to the officials. A big miss.

Play #1:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OmFz3pDGQaA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play #2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R88C2ca4zKw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Play #3:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bfjNqs3CRUE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Play 2 should have been a player control foul before zion made it to the secondary defender.

Play #4:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w7eYkSwKNfQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Except it's quite possible the block was clean and the foul was during the subsequent loose ball period.

Jeff, play 3 and 4 are the same play.

Let shot blockers block shots. Leads, leave plays alone that are on the other side of the basket.

In my pregames.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The lead clearly points at the basket as he is making his foul call, signaling he has the foul occurring on a shot attempt.

To your point, the video shows there is virtually no contact after the shot attempt ends.

Between the actual play and the lead’s mechanics while calling the foul, I’m unsure how this ended up as a 1-and-1 and not 2 shots.

C makes the call
 

It's interesting to me in play #2 that the C actually calls the foul on Tacko and not the Lead. It's the right call but makes me think that the foul was not for being grounded in the restricted area.

He pointed at the restricted area.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Good call. I missed that in the video.

I have to think it's just a brain fart at a terrible moment. They call the foul, head to the tv timeout, discuss the foul situation (that was #9 on Duke), come out and mistakenly line up for a 1-and-1. :(

I'm going to go a different angle on this. IIRC this seemed very quick that they were already lined up to shot the free throws when CBS came out of the media time out. Is it possible they actually did shoot both FT's and CBS didn't catch the first one on the broadcast?

Not according to the play-by-play posted on ESPN.com

8:05 Tre Jones Turnover. 59 - 64
8:05 B.J. Taylor Steal. 59 - 64
7:40 Aubrey Dawkins missed Three Point Jumper. 59 - 64
7:40 Chad Brown Offensive Rebound. 59 - 64
7:38 Foul on Zion Williamson. 59 - 64
7:38 Official TV Timeout 59 - 64
7:38 Chad Brown missed Free Throw. 59 - 64
7:38 Zion Williamson Defensive Rebound. 59 - 64
7:23 Zion Williamson made Jumper. Assisted by Jordan Goldwire. 59 - 66
6:59 Dayon Griffin missed Layup. 59 - 66

I don't remember, but I saw someone on FB say the UCF bench was screaming about

I've seen less contact called an F1 Hook & Hold than what Duke #12 did on UCF #35; that was unfortunately a miss.

UCF #15 does a really bad job on boxing out. The ball bounces outward from the rim. The C and L would have a closed look on any obvious contact by Duke #5.

I thought that hook would have warranted a second look had anyone noticed it live. But it's very congested and the ball went the other direction, so I don't blame them for not seeing it live.

A lot the BS on the internet is focusing on the nonexistent push on tne offensive rebound. It's simply a horrible box out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I wouldn't call the push nonexistent, but it was a terrible effort of the UCF player.

There was no displacement that comes close to warranting a foul.

The iniial drive, similarly, wasn't enough for a PC foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Play 1: 50/50 foul but defender jumps first and compromises position. Need faster whistle though.

Play 2: Absolutely not a PC on Zion. CC on grounded RA play on Tacko.

Play 3: CNC. Interesting to note that if Tacko deflects the inbound pass the rule changes and there would no longer be a back court exception. Important for the Trail to pay attention to whether the ball was deflected and also for the Lead to have awareness to call this play if Trail does not.

Play 4: Marginal push in the back on Slot side rebounding, given the time/score in that situation. Could see a hook and hold foul on the Lead side rebounder.

Any video of this review?

1. This is a tough call if you think he was going to finish with his outside hand anyway then contact is marginal let shot blockers be shot blockers. If you fee like he was going up with 2 or lost the ability to finish with his inside hand because a 260+ pound man is on and through his inside arm then I'm ok with it going to the line. Felt late to go with the foul but I'm ok either way.

2. This looks too much like the one he got called for earlier to not get the PC on the first contact. For consistency no call both or get both Official got the rule right with RA and grounded on Tacko.

3. Looks odd but we are all good.

4. It certainly doesn't look like he pushes him hard, but why on the most important rebound of your life would the player jump under the rim and basket to board the ball. Feel like their was displacement there based on what I'm seeing.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The left hand is in the middle of #15 back and it extends. This is a foul for displacement that was missed by the official. Yes, it was a bad effort by the UCF player which, in my opinion was why the foul was missed, Had he been attempting to hold his position on the play the push is obvious and UCF is shooting two with a chance to take a 3 point lead with seconds remaining.

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!

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

All they could be reviewing was whether or not the original shot, that may or may not have grazed the rim, was released in time. They cannot review whether or not the ball hit the rim.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

These two plays are almost identical.

One is the Duke Play:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/w7eYkSwKNfQ?start=17" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wLFcO7GZYZY?start=20" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

That is how I read the rule as well, but from all indications, it appears the crew was in fact reviewing if the ball hit the rim.

When I was just watching the video of the play, as the ball is possibly touching the rim, there is still 1 second on the clock. That shot appears to have been released with 2 seconds on the shot clock. this should not have required a review. It clicks to zero as the ball is being tapped around by the players going for the rebound. I don't see how they could be reviewing anything other than if the ball touched the rim or not.

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.

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.

Fascinating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I really wanna know how he came to that conclusion. Maybe I'll ask him this summer

Harris is working right now -- Gonzaga/LSU.

Gonzaga/FSU. ;)

Peace

And Paul Szelc is working now.

And Brian O'Connell worked last night.

So all 3 officials from this game worked a Sweet 16 game.