in those rare cases when it does happen yeah I just might ignore it. At least the call doesn't seem too controversial. From everything I've seen about the game WF outplayed Duke and they broke down defensively on that last play which Dicky V called. he got that one right

Same game; worse play
 

Worse was the commentary from a certain color announcer annoucing that a charge was the right call when the overhead clearly showed the defender turning forward into the offensive player after getting LGP.

Yup, a foul should have been called on the Dook player. See:

<b><u>A.R.98</u></b> B1 takes a spot on the playing court <b>before</b> A1 jumps to catch a pass. (1) A1 returns to the playing court and lands on B1, or (2) B1 moves to a new spot and while A1 is airborne. A1 returns to the floor on one foot and charges into B1.
<b>RULING:</b> in both (1) and (2), the foul shall be on A1 because B1 is entitled to that spot on the floor provided that he/she gets there legally before the offensive player becomes airborne.

Note that in AR98 #1, it doesn't specify whether the "spot on the playing court" taken by B1 is laying down or standing up. Note that "jumps to catch a pass" is no different than "jumps to catch a rebound". Note that A.R. 97 refers to an offensive player on the floor moving into a defensive player, not an airborne player landing on a defender.

I didn't see the play...but if the WF player was on the floor before the Dook player jumped and the Dook player didn't jump straight up and down, AR98 sureasheck might be applicable.


Also, FYI, there was an NCAA Directive issued back in 1990 that is still in force:
<b>NCAA Directive 113:</b> If there is any doubt when contact occurs, the foul should automatically be charged to the precious little Dookie player, not the opponent. In addition, a technical foul should automatically also be charged to the whiny little hemmorhoid that coaches Duke.

Yup, AR 98 might be applicable for an airborne player who didn't jump vertically.

OK, that made me laugh! :p

Although, Coach K was very reserved after the loss and I didn't see him whine or complain at all. I think he was more disappointed at the easy score at the end and figured - to lose on a basic, simple play like that (regardless of the "slight push"), they didn't deserve to win.

Since when does LGP apply to rebounders? WF player was the floor and rebounder landed on him and fell. A.R. 97 does not address rebounding action.

I'm not sure what "guarding position" has to do with it.

It was a loose ball rebounded with the Wake player occupying a spot that the Duke player landed on. Words being thrown around on both threads discussing this like "the defensive player" mean nothing here. There is no defense. It was the rebound of a shot.

Again, he's not a "defender" and LGP has nothing to do with this.

I concur on this as well.

But it doesn't apply to the Duke/WF situation.

Hey! There's nothing wrong with being a Duke fanboy! :)

Are we going to discuss whether or not the Wake player pushed off to get that open on the final shot?

I didn't think so.

I brought up my opinion in post #35. What say you?

of course not
 

hey the kid that made the final shot is a kid from Wyoming....not often we get kids in the ACC let alone that get to hit a winning shot against Duke, so being from Wyoming nope, looked clean to me :) :D

Well here's the play in question. It happens at the 3:08 mark of this clip.

You make the call. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOi2kelADoY

After viewing the clip.....

There's nothing even close to a foul on that play. You won't find an official anywhere in the world that'll give you that call, fanboy. If they did, it would be their last game at that level.