Men's Championship Game

[tomegun]

So far I think Hightower's signals and such are a little over the top.

[caliref]

What about when Rush went in for a layup early in the game and the Memphis guy undercut Rush. Why no intentional Foul?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by caliref

What about when Rush went in for a layup early in the game and the Memphis guy undercut Rush. Why no intentional Foul?

It should had been a flagrant personal foul. And I am not saying that because I am a KU fan either.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It should had been a flagrant personal foul. And I am not saying that because I am a KU fan either.

MTD, Sr.

You forgot your smiley face.

No way that was flagrant...ever. Relatively little contact as he ran by him....both at full speed. He was trying to avoid it but misjudged where the shooter was going to go. Sure it happened to topple him, but the defender didn't duck down under and take his legs out.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You forgot your smiley face.

No way that was flagrant...ever. Relatively little contact as he ran by him....both at full speed. He was trying to avoid it but misjudged where the shooter was going to go. Sure it happened to topple him, but the defender didn't duck down under and take his legs out.

The first time, and each time, I saw it, I thought that the defender did undercut the shooter with intention.

Was he just trying to cause the shooter to alter his shot? I don't think so.
Was he trying to injure the shooter? I don't think so.
They don't even do that undercut in the NBA. The defender steps away and watches because the repercussions would be enormous.

The defender angled under him and slowed. in order to be in the path. He knew exactly where the shooter was, and he knew exactly what the result was going to be.

Then why wasn't the intentional called? Because the defender made no other overt move at the shooter, because the shooter didn't get hurt and because the officials did not think the game would be better for such a call [much like the no-call on the 25' bouncy ball].

Did the defender know what he was doing ? You can take it to the bank.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mick

The first time, and each time, I saw it, I thought that the defender did undercut the shooter with intention.

Was he just trying to cause the shooter to alter his shot? I don't think so.
Was he trying to injure the shooter? I don't think so.
They don't even do that undercut in the NBA. The defender steps away and watches because the repercussions would be enormous.

The defender angled under him and slowed. in order to be in the path. He knew exactly where the shooter was, and he knew exactly what the result was going to be.

Then why wasn't the intentional called? Because the defender made no other overt move at the shooter, because the shooter didn't get hurt and because the officials did not think the game would be better for such a call [much like the no-call on the 25' bouncy ball].

Did the defender know what he was doing ? You can take it to the bank.

Sure he tried to be in his way (isn't that defense). But it was far from flagrant. He had not intent to harm or injure or create vicious contact. He didn't bend over to submarine him. He just got in front of him.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure he tried to be in his way (isn't that defense). But it was far from flagrant. He had not intent to harm or injure or create vicious contact. He didn't bend over to submarine him. He just got in front of him.

Ha! I guess he did, but it would have been more sporting to be facing the opponent. Defender knew what he was doing, and so do I.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by tomegun

So far I think Hightower's signals and such are a little over the top.

Not sure why he completely turns his back to the players on OOB plays and then points to the moon.

Originally Posted by caliref

What about when Rush went in for a layup early in the game and the Memphis guy undercut Rush. Why no intentional Foul?

Ah, let's see...because it wasn't an intentional foul?

He tried to get by him without contact but brush him with his right arm. That's not an intentional foul in my book and obviously not in their book either.

[Mark Dexter]

Quote of the night: "You have to know the rules." - Billy Packer

This was actually after he gave a correct interpretation of the double dribble rule. I'm expecting the apocalypse to begin during the first media TO of the second half.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by caliref

What about when Rush went in for a layup early in the game and the Memphis guy undercut Rush. Why no intentional Foul?

Let me ask a question. Why should it have been intentional? I didn't see it, but nothing you wrote here indicates it should have been intentional. Unless the rules are different in California.

[caliref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me ask a question. Why should it have been intentional? I didn't see it, but nothing you wrote here indicates it should have been intentional. Unless the rules are different in California.

Good question. I was asking it on behalf of my dad and brother that saw the play while I was cooking something and missed it. I told them I would ask for them to get some opinions. I didn't know either way.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me ask a question. Why should it have been intentional? I didn't see it, but nothing you wrote here indicates it should have been intentional. Unless the rules are different in California.

Originally Posted by caliref

Good question. I was asking it on behalf of my dad and brother that saw the play while I was cooking something and missed it. I told them I would ask for them to get some opinions. I didn't know either way.

A serious argument can be made for an intentional foul based upon the following which appeared in the rules book two seasons ago. The fouled player was airborne, was attempting a lay-up, and had his leg clipped by an opponent running in from behind. The player attempting to score was certainly in a vulnerable position. The debate will hinge upon whether the contact was excessive or not.

MEN'S AND WOMEN'S COMMITTEE ACTIONS FOR 2006-07 BR-19

Major Concern for Men

Airborne Player/Excessive or Severe Contact. When a player is airborne
attempting a lay-up, any excessive contact by an opponent shall be an
intentional personal foul, even when the opponent is legitimately attempting
to play either the ball or the player. When the contact is severe, a flagrant
personal foul shall be assessed.
The airborne player is in a position of vulnerability and any contact that
is excessive or severe shall be penalized.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A serious argument can be made for an intentional foul based upon the following which appeared in the rules book two seasons ago. The fouled player was airborne, was attempting a lay-up, and had his leg clipped by an opponent running in from behind. The player attempting to score was certainly in a vulnerable position. The debate will hinge upon whether the contact was excessive or not.

Incorrect...he got in front of him, a long way from LGP, but still in front of him. He didn't run into his backside. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be intentional based on that....just getting the facts straight.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MEN'S AND WOMEN'S COMMITTEE ACTIONS FOR 2006-07 BR-19

Major Concern for Men

Airborne Player/Excessive or Severe Contact. When a player is airborne
attempting a lay-up, any excessive contact by an opponent shall be an
intentional personal foul, even when the opponent is legitimately attempting
to play either the ball or the player. When the contact is severe, a flagrant
personal foul shall be assessed.
The airborne player is in a position of vulnerability and any contact that
is excessive or severe shall be penalized.

While it had a very visible effect, the contact was actually quite minimal. It did catch the shooter at an awkward time but was the contact excessive? I didn't think so. Far more contact is the norm on a lot of layups.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Quote of the night: "You have to know the rules." - Billy Packer

This was actually after he gave a correct interpretation of the double dribble rule. I'm expecting the apocalypse to begin during the first media TO of the second half.

Actually the only part he got right was he could recover it. He then said it would be a violation if he advanced the ball.

So the world is safe, he's still a moron.

And I can't stand Hightower. He's a drama queen and the speed of this game was way beyond him, he could not keep up.

[blindzebra]

Packer at his best.

Rose letting the throw-in get up court before picking it up.

He's risking a 5 second count call, Jim.