I just looked at the replay on this. It looked as though the L might have gotten a little ahead of the play and possibly couldn't see the push in the back. It also looks as though although Boyle's right arm is making a legitimate play on the ball, he places his left arm into Singler's back and extends it while Singler is in the air, which does, IMHO, make this an intentional foul.

There was contact on the play. Based upon the NCAA rules and recent directives and POEs there is support for calling any of the three: normal personal foul, intentional personal foul, or flagrant personal foul. My opinion is that it was better to have a whistle on this play than not, but I will not question the judgment of the officials working the contest. I think that they could have gotten away with not having a foul on this play with only some grief, but not a blow-up, from Coach K as the contact wasn't hard, although the Duke player fell hard, but fortunately wasn't hurt. The problem was that a North Carolina player suffered a broken arm/wrist just the day before on a similar play. So again a whistle on this silly challenge from behind when clearly beaten and out of position makes more sense to me.

I will also comment that in my opinion a play such as this must be called by the Lead and Center without any involvement whatsoever from the Trail. The Lead may have gotten himself into a spot with a poor angle by being too close to the action, but the C had a perfect look. The Trail needs to stay the heck out of it and trust his partners to handle their business. To do otherwise undermines the crew. This wasn't a must get that grandma in the 47th row could see.

As either the Lead or C, I would be much displeased with the Trail for coming and putting a whistle on this. It gives the perception that the official is making a call to please a coach. I'm never in favor of that.

According to ESPN.com: Officials: Jamie Luckie ,Roger Ayers ,Dwayne Gladden

I've heard of Jamie Luckie, and I think Ayers is the '70s radical that Obama hangs around with, but I don't know who Gladden is.

I haven't seen the play, so I'm not going to say one way or the other.

That said, a "hard foul" is definitely what this rule refers to. It simply says that just because the player is going for the ball doesn't take away the possibility of an intentional foul.

"Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act."

This simply means contact does not have to be excessive to have an intentional foul; it does not mean a foul can't be ruled such based solely on its severity.

well
 

The Duke pl;ayer could have went for a layup, and would not have fell as hard. There was contact but a simple right hand lay up protected as the D was on his back hip would have got the job done, and he would have laned alot safer.

My Brother a Varsity Boys coach here in IN saw that play then coach K react, and turned the channel. In his words just caoch K getting another call his way.

The L had nothing b/c the only contact that occurred was with B1's left forearm into the left portion of A1's back. The L was on the right side of A1 and B1 and had no way to see that contact. I did not even see that contact until the 3rd replay.

All three are NCAA tournament officials and I'm pretty sure their assignment to last night's game was through the ACC.

As do many plays of this nature (IMO) it just looked/ended up worse than it really was.

When you have two very large, athletic, individuals running at a good clip with A's intent to slam it down and B's intent to block it.....and they go up high at that speed, with their heads near the bottom of the backboard and there is virtually no place to land.....neither player is gonna "stick the landing."

And to say B had his hand in A's back - heck, they're both pretty much trying to keep their balance and not end up in a heap.....which didn't work too well.

I'm just happy this apparently didn't end with any injuries.

I didn't think the play in question was excessive contact.

I understand what you are saying. But, saying "a hard foul like this one" to me sounds like one is basing it off the severity of the act. Stating it's a "hard foul", in my opinion, doesn't mean it's intentional nor does it mean it's not.

I see the point Camron and you are making though.

And I'm not making ANY statement about this play....I haven't seen it....just about what the rule says.

I agree that "hard foul" does mean it is based on severity....and that it what it is supposed to mean...with or without intent.

Here's where I have trouble on a play like this.

I thought the contact was not severe.

It was Singler's physical reaction to the contact that was severe. So how do you differentiate the two? Should you penalize a player for making normal contact if the result of that contact is severe?

Ok... we're on the same page. Was just trying to understand....

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

Agreed. I haven't seen the play yet, perhaps somebody will post a link for those of us too lazy to go find it?

But in general, being a "hard foul" is really not enough information to decide one way or the other. The times I've called "hard fouls" intentional (meaning that in my mind the primary characteristic of the foul that met the definition of intentional was the excessive contact), the foul has either been obviously out of character for that game or it was an obvious escalation that poured gas on the fire of an already physical game. In other words, while based on the contact alone I could have gone either way, an intentional was the right choice based on the context of the game.

The Lead could not see the contact from his angle.

Having seen the highlight of the play, I agree a whistle was in order. The L wasn't in great position, but could have had it.

That said, I see very little reason for an intentional. Running into the support is what made the play look violent. Running into the support is not a good rationale for calling the intentional.