Here is the Tenn/Virginia Play

[tomegun]

I looked at the play, read the new posts and looked at the play again. There is some serious over-officiating going on here. The player would have done a "fly by" he if didn't grab the rim. He did NOT grab the rim because he was in danger. Do you guys realize why he even swung on the rim? Because his body was going that way and grabbing the rim stopped his upper body and his legs retained momentum. Without the (rim) grab, there is no foul and it should have been a T.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by tmp44

Is it possible that the officials here were under the same mindset as the Oden non-intentional? i.e., let the players decide the game?

A player commits an intentional foul or a technical foul... that means the player made his/her contribution towards deciding the game - to not assess the foul means you are preventing the player from "deciding the game", imo.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Um, because there's an offensive player directly below him? He goes up to block the shot, but the shooter fakes. I agree with Camron. The T is certainly justified when he tries to make a play on the ball while holding the rim. But just for grasping, I would not give the T for that.

Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.

(I was watching the game too)

While from your view, it may have been clear that there was no one immediately there or that his momentum would have carried him safely away, can you say that he knew that? Is it possible that with all the bodies converging towards the bucket, he felt there was someone there? Or that the ref felt there were others sufficiently close to justify no T?

I simply didn't think it was "obvious". Possible, yes. But not "obvious'.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While from your view, it may have been clear that there was no one immediately there or that his momentum would have carried him safely away, can you say that he knew that? Is it possible that with all the bodies converging towards the bucket, he felt there was someone there?

What difference would that make?

I really don't think that we're supposed to call this play by trying to guess what a player is thinking. The official has to decide whether the player grabbed the ring to avoid an injury or not. Jmo, but the absence of anyone underneath the player when he grabbed the ring would make it a "T". I saw the play exactly the same way Tomegun saw it.

[bob jenkins]

It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Old School

Actually, here's a case where the rulebook could get you in some trouble. Technically, the player should been ejected. If we are going to call it by the letter of the law, we got a technical foul for grabbing the rim, automatic dead ball, then we have another technical foul for contact on a dead ball after the fact. Or you can say, the player held on or used the rim as an advantage to play defense. That's two technicals, players ejected.

I guess you could reason that contact after the ball is dead is to be ignored unless it's flagrant or intentional. Another example of why you have the referee's judgment to go along with the rule. The correct call is one technical and the ball is dead. New 35 second shot clock after the 2 free throws.

BTW, what was the call here?

There was no call. Just a common shooting foul for the contact on the shooter, which by the way was 80% ball and 20% foul.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

I tend to agree. They didn't know what to call or how to administer it so they didn't call anything. Either that or they didn't want to make a gutsy call. Either they need to do some book review or something else.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

This is entirely possible. However, at their level they get surprised by very little. Furthermore, after all the surprise has worn off and you look at the replay, it should have been a technical. Remember, these officials were there for a reason and it wasn't to be JAFO.

Bob, do you really try to avoid conflict that much?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What difference would that make?

I really don't think that we're supposed to call this play by trying to guess what a player is thinking. The official has to decide whether the player grabbed the ring to avoid an injury or not. Jmo, but the absence of anyone underneath the player when he grabbed the ring would make it a "T". I saw the play exactly the same way Tomegun saw it.

It means everything. For a player to grab the ring to avoid an injury, that means that they must have perceived that a threat was nearby. If it is at all possible that the player could have felt he was in danger, he can grab the rim. In fact, it doesn't even take another player to make that true...he could be all alone and just be out of control....flying sideways.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

he could be all alone and just be out of control....flying sideways.

That's great to know; I think I mentioned that in an earlier response to Tomegun.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's the same play Tom...It's not like a player who's on a fast break and jumps off 1 foot and his momentum causes him to swing on the rim to keep from falling.

But in this case that's pure nonsense. He jumped straight up off 2-feet. The offensive player move to the other side of the rim. Cain grabbed the rim and swung back to make a play on the ball. The ref either missed it or kicked it or had a different opinion at the time, no big deal. But for anyone to sit here after viewing the replay and still try to say, in retrospect, that player hung AND swung on the rim for safety concerns is, in the words of Mike Tyson, ludicrous.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sorry but I disagree. You're seeing a little snippet here. I was watching the game. He grabbed the rim for no good reason. Once there, then he hung on. you can make a case for injury after the initial grab but the fact is there was no reason to grab the rim intially.

Just wondering..... If you look at the play again...
Question for everyone:
Would you have called a foul on Cain if he didn't swing on the rim, solely based on his play on the ball? Would this have been enough to call a foul?
I've seen plays that were not as clean as this one not called.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's entirely possible that the officials were surprised, couldn't think of an explanation for a call, so didn't make one ("don't make a cal you can't explain")

My point exactly.

Going back to your earlier post Bob on the NCAA rule. I think that's a loophole but, do you think the officials knew this rule which is why they didn't call it? IOW, they made the right call which is a no-call. I can't believe it's okay to grab the rim and use it to an advantage if the ball is live, but you can't grab the rim when the ball is dead. Unbelievable!

JR, your point is valid. I was reasoning that the shooting motion had not started. In that case, I would blow the play dead immediately with the T. However, going forward from here, if the T was called, and then the subsequent foul on the shot, that's two fouls. Oh my goodness! I hope this doesn't ever happen to me in an NCAA game.

This might have been the most unique play of the year. I know I would defiantly hesitated if I saw that for the first time. But I also know that I'm calling a goaltending or a technical or something more than just a 2 shoot foul here. In fact, my initial reaction would be my call. Technical foul, shooting motion hasn't started, 2 shots and the ball back. That's the best call here.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Just wondering..... If you look at the play again...
Question for everyone:
Would you have called a foul on Cain if he didn't swing on the rim, solely based on his play on the ball? Would this have been enough to call a foul?
I've seen plays that were not as clean as this one not called.

Yes.

From the replay, I can't tell if the contact "on the arm" was there or not, but the defender definately smacked the offensive player in the face and caused him to go to the ground on the follow-through.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Oh my goodness! I hope this doesn't ever happen to me in an NCAA game.

Not to worry, Old School, not to worry!