Double foul

[canuckrefguy]

The cutter was being pushed, held, and basically harrassed from the get-go. If someone had nailed GT #2 for the foul early - the other stuff magically disappears. We hope.

[Mark Dexter]

I think Reddick has to be called for something here - I'd probably have a false double - intentional foul on GT#2, then an intentional technical foul on Duke#4.

[Nu1]

Originally posted by tomegun
This is a good one for discussion.

http://thomass2004.home.comcast.net/

I think the initial contact is a foul on the GT player.

After they are on the floor the GT player sort of drops a right elbow to the head area that could be intentional/flagrant. He then throws his arms up in a "who me/I'm not doing anything" type of way that we've all seen before. Reddick responds the way a lot of people would.

I see the "who me" action by GT, but I missed the elbow being dropped until I watched it several times. It appears to me that the Lead didn't see the elbow drop either. (The elbow drop does look pretty forceful.)

If the Lead didn't see the elbow drop, where do you think the double foul is? It seems to be a significant enough amount of time before the elbow drop and the wrestling action of Reddick. By the time the Lead is looking at them or at least making his call, it looks like the GT player really isn't doing anything.

Just curious about what constitutes the double foul here.

[bbref3103]

The "slot" sure looks like he is standing behind home plate waiting for the pitch --- why he didn't see the first foul as he goes into the lane befuddles me. There was no "competitive matchup" in his primary -- the next closest matchup was what was going on on the far lane line on the inbound pass play. Get the first foul and we don't penalize the retaliation.