Dead ball personal foul in NCAA game

[Nevadaref]

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.

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.

[ace]

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.

[zebraman]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[JRutledge]

Once a rulebook official, always a rulebook official.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Once an ignorant rut, ...

[JRutledge]

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.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by zebraman

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.

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 needed 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.

[truerookie]

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[rockyroad]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is almost as silly has claiming an official blue a close block-charge foul.

Which is totally different from greening a call.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Which is totally different from greening a call.

--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

[Nevadaref]

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.