NCAA question

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by sixer

That's not how I read the original post.

Yeah, you're right - I misread the original post and just deleted my post.

With that said, false double fouls are still enforced. In the NCAA most technicals are enforced by shooting two and then resuming at the POI, which would be the free throws for the original foul.

It appears that one of two things happened - the officials didn't administer the intentional foul correctly, or the OP/announcers/someone made a mistake and the original foul wasn't an intentional.

[sixer]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

In the NCAA most technicals are enforced by shooting two and then resuming at the POI, which would be the free throws for the original foul.

Which leads me to believe that either a) the refs handled incorrectly (doubtful) or b) the original foul was not intentional. However, I'm sure JS 20 is sharp enough to notice whether the signal for an intentional foul was given or not.

Dunno, sounds incorrect.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by sixer

Which leads me to believe that either a) the refs handled incorrectly (doubtful) or b) the original foul was not intentional. However, I'm sure JS 20 is sharp enough to notice whether the signal for an intentional foul was given or not.

Dunno, sounds incorrect.

Agree completely.

[rockyroad]

Looking at the internet play-by-play on the Louisville website, they have the intitial foul at 8:13 as a Personal, not Intentional, followed by the T on the UL player...so it sounds like the refs handled it correctly.

[Texas Aggie]

It was a double whistle situation where the lead called the foul and the C came in with the intentional signal. I can only guess that when they talked, the C agreed to drop the intentional call. I think that was a mistake. It wasn't the hardest foul you'll ever see, but an intentional would have been a good call in that sit.

[JS 20]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

It was a double whistle situation where the lead called the foul and the C came in with the intentional signal. I can only guess that when they talked, the C agreed to drop the intentional call. I think that was a mistake. It wasn't the hardest foul you'll ever see, but an intentional would have been a good call in that sit.

Exactly, C came in w/ the intentional while L was in between the players. I agree it should have been an intentional. Correct me if i'm wrong, but from what I remember, not only did the defender grab the shooter's arm and pull him to the ground, but he grabbed it at or above the elbow. I think he had him around the bicep area, can't really say he was going for the ball. Based on the situation he was just trying to stop the dunk. In retrospect, given what happened afterwards, kind of wonder why they didn't leave it as an intentional to help get control of the game.

[jeffpea]

didn't see the play, only the previous postings.....based on the descriptions, the crew did NOT handle the T correctly. They had a dead ball T (happened after the original foul was called) that included contact (the pushing/shoving) which they deemed not to be Flagrant ( not combative action/punch/etc) - this is one of two situations where the T is penalized by 2 FT's and the ball (administered at half-court opposite the table). In essence, the crew had an intentional technical foul and did not penalize correctly.

There are only two possible explanations for handling the T penaly as they did: 1) the got it wrong, or 2) the T was not called for a shove/push, but rather just for something a player said verbally......

I had this exact situation happen to me earlier in the year and did not administer the penalty correctly. As a result, I'll "never make that mistake again"......