Dead ball personal foul in NCAA game
 

Scott Thornley just called the fifth personal foul against Utah's #50 Neville with 4:39 remaining in the 2nd half for pushing an opponent to the floor AFTER the ball passed through the basket for a Utah score and BEFORE anyone from Washington had the ball at their disposal. :eek:

If I were the Utah coach, I would be upset. I don't disagree that the action would constitute a foul during a live ball, but the rule is to ignore the contact unless intentional or flagrant when it is dead.

Since players were allowed along the lane during the subsequent FTs at the other end, it is clear that an intentional foul was not called.

I saw the call... I think theres been something going on there between those two. Im not privvy to NCAA POE's and what not - but I didn't mind the foul being called - Something had to be done on that one- I dont like that it was the guys fifth.

Of course thats all from my angle on the couch 10' from the TV.

They were already locked up before the ball went through the hoop. You might be right "by book," but I think any D-1 official is going to use his game management and go with a "live ball" foul on that one. It needed to be called, IMO.

1. I have no idea what ace is talking about. The topic is that the rule was not applied correctly.

2. The players were engaged in normal rebounding position, but nothing illegal happened until the Utah player used his left arm to push the opponent down, and the fact is that that action took place AFTER the ball went through the basket. I've got it on video. I'll disagree with z that it is good game management to misapply the rules. That's never something that an official should do.

Once a rulebook official, always a rulebook official.

Peace

Once an ignorant rut, ... :rolleyes:

I am smart enough to know that what you saw might not have been what the official saw. I am smart enough to know anytime you can call a foul with the ball live, you make sure you call a foul like this you try to make sure the ball is live instead of dead. I know that you are so caught up in rulebook you want to prove to the world you know your stuff. Did it ever occur to you that the foul the official called was before the player hit the floor? Hitting the floor does not mean that was why the foul was called.

I also did not see the play, but there was a foul earlier in the game that where I believe the same player pushed down a Washington player, while the ball was in the air. A Utah player made the basket and a foul was called on a Utah player and the fouled Washington player shoot the bonus. So if this happen later in the game, there probably was a lot of pushing of similar kinds of actions. But then again you were not on the game; you were watching the TV from your couch. So I guess you know better than the officials do. Oh I forgot you got video tape. :rolleyes:

Peace

Jmo, Z, but I think that good game management was getting this crap in the first place so that it doesn't escalate into something else. Whether it was live ball/dead ball is kinda secondary. Calling it a personal foul just ain't a biggie imo.

Thornley was the guy on the spot. He's got an idea of what was going on out there and what he thinks should be done to keep the game under control. He sureasheck has got a better idea of what <b>needed</b> to be called at that particular time in the game than any of us armchair officials. He may have had good reason to go the personal foul route too....reason that we aren't privvy too. We don't know about any previous personal warnings, etc.

Reading what was posted I will add this.
I can understand what Nevada was talking about latter of the rule. (nothing wrong with seeing how the rules are applied by the upper level officials)

I can understand what Z was talking about game mangament. (nothing wrong with the official saying hey it's the guys fifth he's gone anyway)

I can understand Jurassic point. (Get it early and often and this crap will not happen in the first place)


Good points by all!! Now all I have to do is go out and apply all three principles to my games when the situation warrants. :)

I agree that the MOST important thing is to get the foul called. Throwing an opponent to the floor must be penalized. This type of rough play only leads to more rough play and possibly worse.

I'm going to disagree with Jurassic slightly because I think the personal/technical distinction is "a biggie". If it's a technical foul, it results in an extra possession for the offended team. If you improperly call it a personal foul, then we line up for the rebound and the offended team is probably not going to have their additional possession.

But again, it's more important to penalize rough play.

Please note that I did not see the play and so I can make no comment on what the correct call should've been.

I did see the play (hey, it was UW playing and they actually had a chance to win something for a change) and thought that the pushing/shoving started while the ball was in the air and finished with the UW player on his face...imo, it was a good call.

You can argue that since the whistle blew after the ball went thru, it should have been the flagrant T or nothing, but I honestly don't think it could be ignored and honestly think the contact started before the ball was dead.

On a side note, the post play the entire game was very physical. Both the big guy from Utah and Brockman from Washington played like football players minus the pads.

I know you know this, but the whistle does not make the play dead, it is already dead. I am sure if you asked the official that called the game they would say that play started before the ball was dead and that is why they called it that way. And if we are talking about milliseconds difference, I have no problem with the call to make this a live ball foul. My God, no one is perfect. This is almost as silly has claiming an official blue a close block-charge foul.

Peace

Which is totally different from greening a call. :p

--This has been another classic officiating post brought to you by iRut.

Once again, my identity is not wrapped up in this board. Your identity clearly is. Why else would you call it a “classic?” Classics are things you do on the court (or a field), not on the internet. I forgot who I am talking to.

Peace

The crew in the Memphis/Oklahoma game tonight did it right. They correctly penalized excessive contact following a made goal by OK as technical fouls. A player from each team was guilty and so a double T was called.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/2thumbs.gif

It should have been a live ball double foul not a T. The thrower had the ball......................just joking. :D

Peace

Why aren't you calling this crew "rulebook officials"?

That may actually be true. I can't tell from the camera angle.

This is a pretty entertaining thread. :D

I can totally understand the official not wanted to call this an intentional T. If the action began while the ball was live, it is a good call. The rule in this case is one that many officials would be reluctant to call. Additionally, I would only make this call if was clear that it occured during a dead ball.

IMO, most of the time double fouls are cop outs. With the exception of double Ts where players are talking back and forth, one player probably made contact first.

I am sure they were concentrating mainly on the contact, not trying to absolutely to make sure the ball was live or dead and making a big deal out of it. Most of us do not get a video replay when we make calls. And that was the point I was making from the beginning and apparently you missed the sarcasm. ;)

Peace

Right or wrong, officials at the highest levels have learned to not complicate their lives. Back to the original post on this thread. There is no way that Scott Thornley is going to call a dead ball foul on that play unless it's obvious to everyone in the gym that the contact started and ended well after the shot.

The first time I worked a men's CC scrimmage, a three-point shot was taken in front of me. After the shooter (A1) landed, B1 ran into him. The 3-pointer went in. I counted the hoop and gave the ball to team A for a throw-in (we were not in bonus).

After the game, the CC assignor told me this. "You were correct by rule, but you really complicated that play. If you can get away with it, just count the hoop and give A1 a free throw next time."

In a high school game, I may still do it by the book. For me to be successful at the college level, I do it a little different. That's just the way it is.

Now you have me confused. Double fouls have always been defined as occurring at <b>approximately</b> the same time, not at <b>exactly</b> the same time. Anything that I've ever read or anybody that I've ever talked to has never brought up the concept of something having to occur "first". It always seemed to be understood that contact followed by <b>immediate</b> retaliation(as in 2 players jockeying for position in the post) was a double foul, no matter who initiated the contact. Are they teaching that concept differently now?

In my experience, most double fouls are called to clean up post play or off-ball contact, or to send a message to 2 players to knock their crap off. And in everyone one of them, one of the players made the first contact. Do you regard those as cop-outs too, Tom?

Yes they are. The last few years especially in the college ranks it has been taught to get the first foul and not penalize the retaliation.

I cannot speak for Tom, but that is an old way of thinking (at the college level mainly). And in my experience in the past 5 or 6 years at the HS level, double fouls are not considered to be good fouls. A lot of that might be a college influence, but those days seem to be over as a widely accepted practice.

Peace

Just to refine that thought a little bit, they say to get the first foul so that there IS NO retaliation. If you call the first foul immediately, the action stops, and we avoid getting the second one.

Cool, but if you <b>don't</b> get the first foul before retaliation, or if you do get the first foul and there is an <b>immediate</b> retaliation, are both you and Jeff telling me that the correct way to call the play is not a double foul but a personal foul followed by a technical foul for the <b>immediate</b> retaliation? Iow, if you got 2 big 'uns bumping in the hole, you blow your whistle on the first bump and an immediate bump back is either a "T" or ignored, no matter how physical it is?

Note that I said it was used to clean up post play or send a message. Are you saying that's not a widely accepted practice everywhere, or it is not a widely accepted practice in Illinois?

Most of what I am saying comes from official well out of Illinois. Actually most of the camps I have attended the last couple of years were from people that did not live in Illinois at all. I agree that this was once the common philosophy, but that has changed. Now they want you to get the first foul and this has been said by Hank Nichols on the NCAA tapes on a yearly basis.

Peace

But if you do get the first foul, do you now ignore the second foul, no matter how hard the contact is? Or if you do call the second foul, do you call it a T?

I'm talking about what used to be the usual situations where double fouls were called--players banging in the post or wrestling off ball. That's what I'm trying to find out.

Actually I was involved in about 3 situations during camps where we called a foul, then a T following. And you only call the T if the action is intentional or flagrant. The evaluators loved the calls in each situation this past summer. And each situation took place with different evaluators on each game.

I understand what you are asking because that is what I was told when I first started. For whatever reason that philosophy has seemed to change in my HS area and the college supervisors camps that I attended seem to take a similar position. And I think the way Tommy talked about this situation is becoming more and more accepted as a "cop out." And as someone else said, if you get the first one, you will likely stop the retaliation from even taking place. If you penalize both you are likely penalizing the guy that was wrong first and in many minds, that is not the right thing to do. I can tell you that is what John Adams told me personally (and my crew of course) when I attended his camp a few years ago for the first time. John is now the National Coordinator after this year. I am sure that philosophy will continue.

Peace