Kentucky/Louisville
 

A Forearm to the head against a guy flat on the floor, you have the monotor to check the replay, and you don't eject? Are you kidding me?

Someone please explain it. And don't give me the "it's a rivalry" crap.

Just for clarification (no joke here), are you asking if NCAA officials can use replay to determine if a foul was flagrant or not, or are you claiming the foul was flagrant and they just missed it - or both? Thanks.

When I saw who the first reply was, I thought, Oh Great, here goes the sarcastic responses.

As far as your question, I'm asking about both really. There was a scrum on the floor for the ball, 45 seconds into the game. Cousins from Kentucky throws a pretty good forearm to the head of the louisville player he was fighting for the ball with. Guy on the floor came up mad and got a quick T, as did one of his teammates I believe who came in angry to help break it up. Officials went and looked at the monitor and then assessed an unsportsmanlike T on Cousins, which must have been for the forearm to the head. I guess I'm asking if they could come up with the T from the reviewing the video, why couldn't they come up with the flagrant?

I thought it was the right route to go after looking at the monitor.

I bet you would have a different feeling if you were the one who took the shot to the head. If they make that call without the monitor I get it. But you go to the monitor and see that forearm to head of a player and don't toss him? They didn't have the balls to pull the trigger in the blue grass state. Sad from veteran NCAA tournamnet crew.

I'm a little confused -- it appears the foul on Cousins was a live-ball foul, so it couldn't (or shouldn't) have been a T.

They are allowed to use the monitor to determine if the contact was flagrant. I didn't (obviously) see the play, so I have no opinion on the specific call.

Very well stated. That's what was the most shocking to me. They called NOTHING on cousins prior to going to the monitor. And then, when they did, the call didn't seem to be justified by the action. It was live ball action and how it wasn't flagrant is beyond me!!

From the reverse angle, it looked like the trail, whoever that is, was WAY too far away from the play and needed to close in when the scrum happened.

Still, whoever the lead was should have also perhaps had a look at the two guys on the floor and the quite obvious forearm/elbow to the head.

Don't often agree with the halftime TV panelists, but they're right on this one methinks. Should have been covered better - and Cousins should have been ejected.

Having to go to the monitor is kind of lame, but at least it prevented Cousins from getting away scot-free.

Other than that, I thought they did a good job clamping down on maybe the most volatile start to a game I've seen in years.

There may have been a held ball called immediately preceding the contact...by a hair. That would explain what they come up. Not being privy to their exact call, it's a guess on my part.

Re: the contact...straight judgment call whether the contact was flagrant or not. Imo it was( after several replays also). In their opinion, it wasn't. They win. :) At least something did get called, even though it was retroactively.

Just your average ol' football forearm shiver...but to the head....and it sure looked deliberate to me.

More than likely we will see this play again during the course of the year when John Adams sends out his video breakdown of plays.

It seemed pretty deliberate to me, and to have the ability to use the monitor as many times as needed to make the determination.

I suspect there might be some consequences to be faced by the crew on this game.

Well then lets all do this, let us all try to convince the SEC or Big East to let any three of us work this game next year, and if the same situation happens, see if any of us as a crew has the guts to do what in some people's minds should have been done.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. However, I am going to side with this officiating crew before anything else.

Oh "icallfouls", I would be shocked if this crew faced penalties for the way the handled that situation. If they had not been calling fouls early, and this happened, then I might agree with you. But, this crew came out putting air in the whistle early and often, thus I do not think they will face penalties.

That's a BS cop-out response, with all due respect.

The big-timers should be subject to the same scrutiny and accountability as everybody else.

They easily could have covered that play better. I'm not saying I've never made mistakes like that, but then again, this thread isn't discussing my mistakes or potential mistakes. Greene, Shows, and the third guy (?) have done more big games than I'll ever do - but dismissing criticism based on that is less than lame. You can bet the observer, if there is one, and/or their supervisor, will not be dismissing it, and will mention it as part of their critique.

The big guys screw-up too. It's a fact of life.

PS - penalties over it? C'mon, as if.

johnsandlin

Please open your mind. I only said consequences. As far as we know it could be something as simple as double secret probation. But for sure there will be some discussion on the matter.

In most conferences, the assignors policy is that for any T foul called by the crew, the calling official is to inform the assignor directly within a certain time frame so that the assignor can have time to review it as necessary. They will discuss it and there will be a video review. The assignor will tell the official(s) personally as to what their opinion is. That will basically be it. However, if the SEC was responsible for providing the officials, lately they have taken to commenting in public on the actions of their officials.

I have a couple of friends that work a serious D1 schedule and have been told that things like this can affect league tournament placement, NIT, or NCAA tournament games.

Absolutely the big hitters get the benefit of the doubt, but no one is excused completely these days. Too many people want their pound of flesh.

This isn't a matter of whether or not they were calling fouls early. They were. This occurred literally 45 seconds into the game. Prior to this, there had been 2 defensive fouls called for pushing through some screens too hard, and an offensive foul on a drive to the basket.

I think the issue here is that these guys didn't have the balls to make the big call which was so obvious, EVEN AFTER GOING TO THE MONITOR!!!

And the third guy....
 

...was Cahill, I believe.

To those who think my previous comment was a BS cop-out...Why do you feel that way? My point is this.......I am not at all saying that just because this officiating crew consisted of some of the top officials in the country, that they are above the law to be disciplined. No one is in this business.

I was saying unless we were right there to hear them talk to each other about what they saw on the replay and then discuss with each other what they were going to do, then I think we cannot stand in judgment of their decision of the way they handled it.

I personally think some of my comments from earlier were taken out of context. If they were not explained better, then I am sorry for that.

So are you saying we don't have the right to state what we'd have called based on the video? That's how it's coming across.

That move is completely legal ... in the UFC.

Tough week for him.

My point is this....if this happend to any one of us, and real time is all you had....it would be difficult to get this perfect. Having said that we had several angels and slow motion. I can't see how you can come to the conclusion they did. Unless they don't have the replay we have. If that kind of a blow to the head doesn't warrant an ejection what does?

No I am not saying that, I am saying that we do not have the right to judge the officiating crew. And in reading some of these posts, I think that is what is being done.

As odd as this may sound, they (officiating crews) sometimes do not have all of the angles the home viewing audience has.

Also, what else was Cahill involved with this past week?

The video obviously tipped them off that Cousins did SOMETHING - otherwise he would have gotten nothing. But he received a technical for SOMETHING. The video clearly must have shown the elbow, otherwise they wouldn't have had anything.

The question then becomes, by necessity, why was the forearm/elbow, which virtually everybody is saying was flagrant, not deemed as such?

Guys like Greene, Shows, and Cahill normally don't have one single problem making big calls, no matter what the situation. The question here is why they didn't toss Cousins for what was clearly an ejection-worthy, non-basketball play.

And unless we can talk them or hear them talk through the media, all of us may never know the answer to that question.

How do you define passing judgment? I see people who think they should have called a flagrant; that's the opinions of the posters. Is that what you call passing judgment?

Well then, I guess we just shouldn't discuss plays here at all :rolleyes:

Thanks for posting the info on the Cinci/UCONN game. Did not see the game. And I guess we will agree to disagree on this play today.

Now that I've seen the game (before I opened this thread)....

When I saw the replay, I thought to myself that it "could" be considered flagrant but was perhaps just little enough that they may call it only a T (intentional T). It could have been called flagrant and I wouldn't have disagreed with it at all but I can also see how they felt it fell just a bit short of flagrent.

As for what was called that made it a dead ball....a held ball.

As a result of this play, KY #15 shot 2 FTs and KY got the ball out of bounds on the baseline.

A total of 3 Ts were given out on this play. Whistle was blown for the jumpball and the ball is dead. After seeing his teammate get elbowed, Louisville #12 gets the first T (issued by Greene) for pulling KY #15 off the pile. Louisville #21 (the player involved with the jumpball and victim of elbow) got the 2nd T (issued by Shows) for shoving KY #15.

Only after the crew looks at the replay do they issue a T to KY #15.

1) My questions are why only 2 FTs were issued? Did the crew determine after the replay that KY #15 and L'ville #21 was a double T?

2) The T by L'ville #12 occurred after a dead ball which involved contact in a non-flagrant manner. Should play resume at the division line for KY on the throw-in?

Foul enforcement:

The two fouls were offsetting, not double, per rule 10-5. All three fouls would have been Class A fouls. Since it was not a single foul, the resumption of play will be POI.

They missed the first one to begin with.
 

The whole crew missed the guy from Louisville sitting on top of Cousins' when the scrum started. I have started calling more fouls during loose balls and not letting kids dive on top of each other for loose balls. So many times several refs call a held ball instead of a foul.

Serious Question
 

Will anything happen as a result of this play/game situation now or is it over and done?

Will the crew get a note/call from the NCAA on their thoughts as to what they did/didn't call? Procedures they followed? Will it just be ignored as just another game situation? Re emphasis go out to all officials?

Just curious as to your thoughts.
Thanks

Thanks for your answer and agree with the offsetting Ts.

Could you clarify your above statement about the "single foul"?

Are you referring to the contact dead ball technical foul by L'ville #12? As I understand it the resumption of play is throw-in to the offended team (Ky) at the division line (with reset of the shot-clock).

Will probably see something on the Arbiter's Central Hub. They posted the Cincy/Xavier incident with some comments.

I fixed that for ya.

Unfortunately, I believe that it is password protected and the information not available to the general public.

Perhaps such info could be posted on this forum by those with access.

Here's a view from the front. There was a better view from behind showing the elbow being thrown that was constantly being replayed.

YouTube - DeMarcus 'Double Tech' Cousins

I thought it shoulda been called flagrant when I saw it live....and on the numerous replays. Still do.

Agreed. Not sure why it was not called a flagrant after they went to the monitor.

Gotta love it when even the UK fan who is filming (or someone near him) says (right at the end of the video) "DeMarcus elbowed him in the head first". :eek:

Deej, did you notice Cahill, the Lead, on the play? I thought that he had a good look at the play and he did call the held ball, but the Trail had to come all the way in to make the subsequent calls. The Trail called both initial "T"s against Louisville while Cahill seemed to stay right out of the play.

Cahill is a veteran official who has shown that he's certainly not afraid to make the tough call. I was just wondering why he didn't get more involved in a play that was right in front of him.

Thoughts?

If that's not flagrant, especially after seeing it on the replay, then I don't know what is.

Well, three very well respected officials that have done a lot higher games than any of us felt otherwise....even with numerous replay and time to consider it. Right or wrong, I think I'll go with their judgement. Something about it, in their opinion, must have been insufficient for a flagrant.

I do not see this as a flagrant either. I see players fight for the ball and some contact that might be rough, but not flagrant. Then again, I am not one of those officials on the floor and I am watching with the benefit of replay on my couch. Just saying.

Peace

If you don't feel like it should have been a flagrant, cool. But, the reasoning above is total BS in my opinion.

Rut, mentioned why he thought it isn't flagrant; an opinion that will initiate conversation. JR said he thought it was flagrant; another opinion. Neither of those opinions are lemming-ish. :D I made that up for this special occasion!

I honestly think he was blocked out of a lot of the stuff - too many bodies in the way. As he was closing in the Louisville players who did the pushing were pushing the UK player toward Cahill. So he was in probably the worst position to call those first T's...then he must have been the U2 as he was the one who stayed out on the court and kept an eye on the players/benches.

From my vantage point on the couch, I honestly thought this was a flagrant foul. I would love to hear their post-game discussion! Perhaps they only went with the T because the reaction of the Louisville player was fairly subdued...if he comes up and takes a swing, perhaps they toss both players? I don't know - just speculating here.

I thought the elbow was flagrant.

Having said that, there was a play later in the first half where Cousins shoved an opponent during a dead ball. When I saw it, I immediately thought "T", but nothing was called. I don't know if they didn't see it or didn't think a technical was warranted, but I hope that somebody didn't see it and think "well, he already has one technical, so I'll pass on this."

I stated that I tought it was borderline in an earlier post...that I didn't think it was flagrant but believed before the call that a flagrant was a possible outcome of the review. Even though I didn't think it was flagrent, I wouldn't claim soneone was wrong who would call it flagrant.

The statement that I was responding to

"If that's not flagrant, especially after seeing it on the replay, then I don't know what is."

is clearly too strong given that three very credibile officials didn't call it flagrant.

I didn't feel I needed to repeat my specific opinion.

I made my comment in reference to your statement that went along with the officials on the game merely because they do a lot of games. I think that is weak logic. If you had an opinion of your own that was previously stated I would have no problem with that.

JR - Didn't Tony Greene come in with one of the T's from the centre position? I thought I saw that on the replay.

Shows, from what I can see, was the T on this play - and way too far away from what looks like his primary, or at least a double-coverage area. Poor positioning?

The replay they showed during the broadcast, which was from the camera on the baseline, showed that the T had a clear view of the struggle for the ball - but was likely too far away when it got intense and Cousins threw the elbow.

Yup, there were 2 "T"s originally called on the play against Louisville and I think that both Greene and Shows each got one.

The play was half-way down the lane line and on the L's side. Definitely in Cahill's primary. I don't know(and probably never will) why he didn't catch the forearm. He musta been screened or something is all I can figure. No way that Shows should have to come all the way in from T to make any call. He's just too far away to have a good view of the whole play.

Agree also that it's very possible that Shows was screened out from the elbow thrown by Cousins too.

My take on it? From what I've read in the Kentucky papers, there was trash-talking before the game and all through the game. Both coachs were also quoted saying something like "our guys will never back down" and "they'll never punk us out" and nonsense like that. And both team's supporters claimed that their opponents were nothing but thugs. But imo you can forget about blaming the kids and lay a lot or all of the blame on both the head coaches. And that's not surprising either because they are a good pair; they're both scumballs. If any coach want to stop the trash-talking and posing, s/he can and will. Those two clowns believe in intimidation and getting any advantage that they can though and their players simply follow their lead.