Video Requests: Michigan State vs Bradley @ Des Moines

[dahoopref]

1st half - 15:28

After a made basket by MSU, crew called an F1 on Bradley. Should it have called a Contact Deadball Technical Foul?

[chapmaja]

I did not witness this play on TV, but did listen the broadcast of the game on the radio. IIRC, the way the MSU radio broadcast described the play was battling for rebounding position for a shot which was in the air and the MSU player was undercut by the Bradley player. My guess is the officials noted felt this was during the playing action of going for a rebound that ultimately was a made basket. Since the contact was deemed excessive, it was rules an F1.

I did not notice MSU also got hit with an F1 later from what was described as a similar play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

1st half - 15:28

After a made basket by MSU, crew called an F1 on Bradley. Should it have called a Contact Deadball Technical Foul?

Peace

[bob jenkins]

NCAAW changed the rule so that fouls during the dead ball period immediately following a basket are personal (not technical) fouls -- for situation such as this.

It's either an F1 or a T -- and it looked like the foul happened before the ball declared the net, so F1.

Then again, this might get to whether it's the "contact" or the "whistle" that matters.

[JRutledge]

I do not think you can call a dead ball contact technical here. I think the ball is in the net and the contact occurred as the ball was entering the basket. It is closer than I first thought, but not quite. I think FF1 was an appropriate call.

Peace

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think you can call a dead ball contact technical here. I think the ball is in the net and the contact occurred as the ball was entering the basket. It is closer than I first thought, but not quite. I think FF1 was an appropriate call.

Peace

I completely agree. What I see is the ball still in the net when the contact occurs which is still a live ball situation. I also completely agree with the officials that this is a Flagrant 1. After having seen the video I think an argument could be made for a flagrant 2 to be called on this. The contact was definitely excessive and was not made in an attempt to make a basketball play. Where I would go FF2 on this is the fact he to throw his hip into the MSU player while he is running through him undercutting him.

As a Michigan fan who does have respect for the MSU program, I am really glad he wasn't hurt considering MSU did lose one of their key reserves to an ankle injury in the BT Title Game Sunday.

[griblets]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I completely agree. What I see is the ball still in the net when the contact occurs which is still a live ball situation. I also completely agree with the officials that this is a Flagrant 1.

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by griblets

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

I don't know that there is a specific ruling on the book that says this isn't goaltending except common sense. I think you open up a real can or worms if you call a goaltend on this play in which the reason for the goaltend was the player attempting to catch himself after a flagrant foul by the defense on the play.

If you thought Izzo's reaction to his player was bad during the game, calling a GT on that play might have gotten Izzo an ejection.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by griblets

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

The ball is actually pretty much through the rim. I doubt anyone is going to put their career on the line or their advancement to call a BI for a player that was getting knocked down and the ball shot is practically over if not over. We make judgments all the time and if I have to look so hard that I can tell if the ball is in the net off a player being fouled in that situation, I am probably not going to fall on the sword for that one. That to me is a "gotcha" call not a very good "common sense" one.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by griblets

What hasn't been addressed is the basket interference by W44? You can argue that he was grabbing the ring to protect himself, but the ball still had not cleared the net when the ring was grabbed. I'd have a hard time calling basket interference due to the foul. But, what rule defends not calling basket interference?

It cleared the net enough for me.

And it's not something that's reviewable. The way you were describing it as such a blatantly missed call, I was expecting the ball to still be up by the ring when he touched the rim. The ball was at least half way out of the bottom opening of the net.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk