USC vs Arizona - Intentional Foul

[dahoopref]

Here's a play I thought was interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA1RHyshzbs&fmt=18

USC player causes Ariz player to go down out of bounds along the sideline at FT line extended (foul or not is debatable).

USC player stands over Ariz player (something brewing and T looking at it).

Ariz player pushes USC player off and causes him to flip. T still looking at it with no whistle, L comes running in and calls a foul on Ariz player. After review the monitor, the crew gives the Ariz an intentional foul.

I hate criticizing my fellow referees but it just looks bad that the T had nothing during the entire sequence. That kind of play is a "you have to get it no matter where you are on the court" type of thing.

I appreciate more thoughts and inputs from my fellow colleagues on this board. Thanks.

[Scrapper1]

Not sure what they were reviewing on the tape. I think the only thing that they could've determined on replay is whether there was a flagrant foul in the sequence. There clearly wasn't.

The video also doesn't tell us what the final ruling was. It should be an unsporting T on the USC player for standing over the Arizona player and an intentional personal on the Arizona player. IMHO.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Not sure what they were reviewing on the tape. I think the only thing that they could've determined on replay is whether there was a flagrant foul in the sequence. There clearly wasn't.

The video also doesn't tell us what the final ruling was. It should be an unsporting T on the USC player for standing over the Arizona player and an intentional personal on the Arizona player. IMHO.

I watched the game and only an intentional foul was given to the Az player. No T was issued to any player during this sequence of events.

I think a T on the USC player for taunting. Thus the contact by the Ariz after the T would be an Intentional T on him.

I just don't understand why the T didn't have an initial whistle during the whole thing.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It should be an unsporting T on the USC player for standing over the Arizona player and an intentional personal on the Arizona player. IMHO.

Standing over a player out of bounds?
Player who stood up certainly added some 'emphasis' to getting the player off of him.

[Raymond]

I personally would have had a 'T' on USC player for taunting or nothing at all. I don't think what AZ player did warranted a foul.

[Berkut]

I was rather amazed at this after seeing the replay. I assumed while watching that Wise punched him or did something extreme - I cannot understand how they could mess this up so badly. I am still hoping there was something that wasn't apparent on the TV.

The thing is, it isn't like the straddling hium was an accident or something - he clearly stepped forward and stood over him to keep him from getting up. How can you let that go?

Even if it isn't a T, why isn't it an immediate blocking foul on the USC player? He certainly does not have a legal guarding position.

[Nevadaref]

John Adams would say "call the first foul."
If the Trail had penalized the USC player for a simple pushing foul, then the mess doesn't happen.

The Lead should stay out of this as he did not observe the entire action.

I have to think that the Trail passed on the initial push and therefore allowed the AZ player to push back in getting up. I don't think that the USC player needs to be penalized for going over and standing above the fallen AZ player. He isn't holding him down or taunting him. He is closely guarding him without contact. That is okay. While the Trail's method for dealing with this encounter probably not the best way to handle it, he did have the players separated and the situation under control before his partner came out signaling a technical foul.

Clearly a T is not proper here. This was a contact situation during a live ball. That is likely why the call was changed to an intentional personal foul during the discussion by the officials. I also have to believe that the monitor was used to see if there was a punch to the groin or anything that would warrant a flagrant foul.