NCAA Tourney - Marquette v. Missouri

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by WreckRef

Like I said in my post, I did not watch the game or see the play. Also, the first half of my original post is what the OP said even though it isn't quoted. I fixed my first post in this thread to show I was quoting the OP.

I think we all know what happened, not really worth posting about, just semantics.

[diner30]

I can't believe everyone let this go. The shot at the end of the game was a foul! Call the obvious. The defender was never in legal guarding postion. The shooter was not out of control (which doesn't matter), and was clearly contacted by the defender. A foul should have been called and 3 shots awarded. Just because a player is "out of control" doesn't mean that the defense can foul them. It really doesn't matter in this play, because the offensive player was in clear control of his body, and the defender clearly moved into his space. The player was also clearly in the act of shooting. Just because he was farther away from the basket than usual doesn't mean that he wasn't shooting. The play is what it is...a player in the act of shooting was contacted by a defender who was not in a legal guarding positon, and the contact put the offensive player at a clear disadvantage. 3 shot foul. Why do we make this so complicated on ourselves? That is why we make mistakes, we over complicate a simple situation. The reason that the L didn't blow his whistle is most likely because he thought a foul was called on the shot, and there was no need for his whistle. The toughest part of this play is that the L had the best look at it. But "it was out of his area," so an obvious foul was let go. Anyone on the court who saw that foul should have had a whistle on it.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by diner30

I can't believe everyone let this go. The shot at the end of the game was a foul! Call the obvious. The defender was never in legal guarding postion. The shooter was not out of control (which doesn't matter), and was clearly contacted by the defender. A foul should have been called and 3 shots awarded. Just because a player is "out of control" doesn't mean that the defense can foul them. It really doesn't matter in this play, because the offensive player was in clear control of his body, and the defender clearly moved into his space. The player was also clearly in the act of shooting. Just because he was farther away from the basket than usual doesn't mean that he wasn't shooting. The play is what it is...a player in the act of shooting was contacted by a defender who was not in a legal guarding positon, and the contact put the offensive player at a clear disadvantage. 3 shot foul. Why do we make this so complicated on ourselves? That is why we make mistakes, we over complicate a simple situation. The reason that the L didn't blow his whistle is most likely because he thought a foul was called on the shot, and there was no need for his whistle. The toughest part of this play is that the L had the best look at it. But "it was out of his area," so an obvious foul was let go. Anyone on the court who saw that foul should have had a whistle on it.

If you saw it on TV like I did, you couldn't tell from camera view. I'm going to go with the crew who had a better look.

What year did you graduate from Marquette?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by actuary77

Was watching the end of the Marquette v. Missouri game and I saw 2 interesting end of game situations.

1) When a Mizzou player was fouled in the act of shooting, he was grimacing and was "injured" that he was unable to attempt the free throws. As expected, a better free throw shooter from the bench subbed for him and took the free throws (he made both). After the free throws, the original "injured" player entered back to the game.

I know this is allowed in the official NCAA rules. But what surprised me was there was no restriction on when the "injured" player can come back in. So why aren't more coaches using this legal procedure of faking an injury if the fouled player is bad at free throws? Or maybe we really live in a world where most coaches honor the intent of the rule and not abuse it.

2) Is it really a throw-in violation when the player inbounding the ball stepped on the end line? The color commentator was pretty emphatic about it, but I couldn't find it in the rules.
I'm a HS official and I know that in HS, this is NOT a violation, at least not when it's after a field goal. The most you can do is stop the play and do a repeat of the throw-in.

Is it covered under the rule of the spot throw-in and it's technically leaving the spot?

Thanks.

Color commentator and play by play never said that, they said he stepped inbounds and that's a violation. They got it right.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by diner30

I can't believe everyone let this go. The shot at the end of the game was a foul! Call the obvious. The defender was never in legal guarding postion. The shooter was not out of control (which doesn't matter), and was clearly contacted by the defender.

Oh yes it does. The simple fact there was contact does not mean there is a foul. The shooter was just trying to throw the ball at the basket and did not need contact for him to fall. Even if the defender is not in legal guarding position, that player is allowed their place on the floor. They do not have to move out of the way of the shooter simple because they are a shooter.

Originally Posted by diner30

A foul should have been called and 3 shots awarded. Just because a player is "out of control" doesn't mean that the defense can foul them. It really doesn't matter in this play, because the offensive player was in clear control of his body, and the defender clearly moved into his space. The player was also clearly in the act of shooting.
Just because he was farther away from the basket than usual doesn't mean that he wasn't shooting. The play is what it is...a player in the act of shooting was contacted by a defender who was not in a legal guarding positon, and the contact put the offensive player at a clear disadvantage. 3 shot foul. Why do we make this so complicated on ourselves? That is why we make mistakes, we over complicate a simple situation.

Clear? Obvious? Obvious to whom? Because the angle they showed at best had two players standing next to each other. I do not know that the defender even moved into the direction of the shooter. It is very debatable that the defender even did anything illegal. And for all I can tell the shooter jumped in the defender's direction. And it is not complicated if what someone saw is different from you.

Originally Posted by diner30

The reason that the L didn't blow his whistle is most likely because he thought a foul was called on the shot, and there was no need for his whistle. The toughest part of this play is that the L had the best look at it. But "it was out of his area," so an obvious foul was let go. Anyone on the court who saw that foul should have had a whistle on it.

Why would the lead have a better look 10 feet away from the three point line? And he has players right in front of him during the play? I would disagree with "anyone seeing the foul" argument. If you see that foul, what were the other players doing that you were should be watching?

Peace

[zm1283]

Why was my post about Bob Knight deleted? Is there some rule I'm not aware of that I violated?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4. The inadvertant whistle with 36.1 seconds remaining in the first half.

Furthermore, it seemed to me that this whistle was sounded because one of the officials got confused by the clock continuing to run following the made goal by Missouri. He had to be thinking of the rule for the 2nd half.
However, there was a quick discussion about whether or not to permit substitutions by both teams following this whistle. The crew got it right and allowed the subs to enter. Again that restriction only applies in the 2nd half or OT.


Rule 3, Section 4
Art. 6. Substitutions shall not be permitted when the game clock has been
stopped after successful field goals in the last 59.9 seconds of the second half
or any extra period and before the clock has been properly started except for the
following:
a. Those substitutions permitted by rule including, but not limited to,
injury, blood, violation, foul, disqualification, timeout , or for a lost,
displaced or irritated contact lens or displaced eyeglasses. There shall be
no substitutions during the dead ball period when the clock is stopped to
correct a timing mistake or for an inadvertent whistle. After the clock has
been properly started following a made basket, then all substitution rules
apply.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who needs to relax? You said, "Come on Rut" as if the world was coming to an end if someone did not agree with your take on this issue.

I simply said you do not know what was said and neither do I. And to say he must be dropping f-bombs because he covered up his mouth is kind of silly to me. We do not know what the official said to the coach either and neither official covered up their mouths.

Peace

I am not trying to make an issue out of this just an observation...I don't know what he said...you are right on that account.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How old are you?

Peace

Old enough to know that your question is a complete non sequitor.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Old enough to know that your question is a complete non sequitor.