Is this reviewable?
 

KU KState game last night, 55 seconds left, Agbaji attempts 3 and defender clearly undercuts and foul is called. Trail first went up to signal attempted 3, then on undercut signaled foul. Agbaji was 8 inches behind the line when he left the floor. Somehow they decide on a 2 point shot instead of 3, refuse to discuss with Self or review.

Is that not reviewable? Then after the game, the officials supposed told media that the foul was several steps before the catch to shoot, even though the calling official did nothing those several steps earlier, AND showed a preliminary 3 shot attempt signal.

KU ended up winning, but this was amongst the biggest screwups I've seen in a while. The question is, how can that play not be reviewable. And given the video evidence of what the official's procedure actually was, how does he stay employed at that level? Because his postgame disclosure to media is clearly BS. Either keep quiet, or admit you screwed the pooch.

Don't know how to upload a video, but it is a pretty amazing clusterf...jsut curious if anyone else saw and whether I'm missing something.

What are you asking is reviewable?

If the official said they called a foul on contact that happened before the shot, what is it you want reviewed? They cannot review whether or not something is a shooting foul.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I found a video highlight that includes the play. Maybe later when I get a chance to get on my laptop I can embed the video starting at that play.

The only thing I can think of that would make that a two-shot foul is if the official ruled that the player had landed prior to getting fouled.

I need to see a transcript of what you say this official supposedly said. I don't trust third and fourth hand transmission of other people's words.

Kansas is lucky in an illegal screen wasn't called, because the screener tripped the defender causing him to fall into the shooter.

Play is at the 26:05 mark of this video.

https://youtu.be/uccWTZYB2Qw

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Definitely an illegal screen that caused the train wreck, but that’s tough for the official to see when he’s on-ball, refereeing the defense, and three players come together bang-bang. Would have been a great get, but it’s also an understandable miss.

That said, the announcers didn’t help, but I think Raymond is right. I think they decided the airborne shooter had returned to the floor. So two shots due to double bonus, not due to a two-point try.

But that airborne shooter clearly had not returned to the floor. Moreover, 99.9% of the time on plays like that we err on the side of saying the shooter was still airborne. So it’s very puzzling in a key moment like this that the crew wouldn’t do so (especially since it wasn’t really even close).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Three Point Attempt ...
 

In my high school game, this gets three free throws.

It would help if the Lead mirrors the ball and double teams that play.

I'm also waiting for those supposed statements made by the officials to the media.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I was thinking the same thing earlier but figured surely he must have had a matchup to officiate or something like that.

But, upon another review…..nope. He was looking at….nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Big 12 Conference released a statement from coordinator of officials Curtis Shaw saying that the shooter was ruled to have returned to the floor prior to being fouled. Therefore, the act of shooting had ended and the player was awarded bonus FTs. Kansas was in the double bonus at the time.

Right. And the whistle in the Raiders-Bengals game was after the touchdown, too.

Convenient explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/co...257643098.html

Here is the article with the quote from Shaw.
The article also includes a video clip of the play from two different angles. It is blatantly obvious that the airborne shooter has not yet returned to the floor when the contact occurs.

Imagine if the try had been successful. Do we think for a second they’d have given him two more free throws?

Of course not. Which is why the call as it was lacked any semblance of believability.

I suppose there will be a push now to add the end of airborne shooter status to the list of things reviewable at the monitor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What other reason would there be for there to be two free throws awarded in that situation?

I've seen myself on video a few times blow calls this season. The reason I made those calls doesn't change just because now I see the replays and realize I was wrong.

It took me exactly one time of looking at that play on YouTube to realize what had happened in regards to the ruling. And that ruling had nothing to do with the gobbledygook the OP claimed came from the referee's mouth.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

All fair points. Lord knows I’ve made cr@p calls, too.

I just wish Shaw had been a little more contrite. To say what was ruled on the court and to admit that what was ruled on the court was incorrect are two different ways to answer the question, and I favor the latter. No one expects us to be perfect, but we (and our supervisors) should not be afraid to be honest and humble when we err.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i just read supposed explanation of what happened but realized yesterday they must have thought he landed. also agree on screen. disgusting Shaw didnt have the integrity to admit the truth.

Not trying to be funny, but every supervisor has a boss. It might have been that they did not want him to reveal everything about the call. Calm the freak down. There was probably internal conversations with the calling official and the conference for what was called or how things could have been handled.

Peace