St. Mary's/Gonzaga rescinded INT

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The part in red is my question. Is that in fact what they did?

The answer to the part in black is because reviewing fouls with the courtside monitor which were deemed intentional on the court to determine if they really were is currently not permissible under the NCAA rules.

I don't think you can answer the first question without speaking to the officials.

Isn't it possible that they reviewed the monitor for the purpose of evaluating whether the foul was flagrant (permissible), and they learned that it wasn't even intentional?

Do the rules determine not only the situations in which officials may consult the monitor, but also how that information is to be used?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Do the rules determine not only the situations in which officials may consult the monitor, but also how that information is to be used?

Yes.

I don't know for sure whether they can rescind an intentional foul call from what they see on the monitor - my understanding has been that they can't but I'm not an NCAA official and haven't reviewed those rules recently - but the rules do dictate what is permissible to change based on replay and what is not.

[Adam]

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, but perhaps this official used the "X" to signal flagrant, as we've seen a lot of officials do. This would make the review and subsequent "reversal" completely legal.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, but perhaps this official used the "X" to signal flagrant, as we've seen a lot of officials do. This would make the review and subsequent "reversal" completely legal.

Interesting thought...would make sense.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, but perhaps this official used the "X" to signal flagrant, as we've seen a lot of officials do. This would make the review and subsequent "reversal" completely legal.

Or perhaps the off official consulted with the calling official prior to the monitor review and gave a contrary opinion (no, that wasn't intentional) and the calling official changed his own call without aid of the monitor. And then they used to monitor to ensure it wasn't flagrant (this part makes little sense, but who knows).

As you can see by my writing, the officials can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they get their explanation straight.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

As you can see by my writing, the officials can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they get their explanation straight.

This emphasizes the need for excellent communication among the crew.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Or perhaps the off official consulted with the calling official prior to the monitor review and gave a contrary opinion (no, that wasn't intentional) and the calling official changed his own call without aid of the monitor. And then they used to monitor to ensure it wasn't flagrant (this part makes little sense, but who knows).

As you can see by my writing, the officials can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they get their explanation straight.

This was actually my first thought.

[Rich]

And if intentional (excessive contact) can't be reviewed, it's one that should be reviewable. If flagrant / non-flagrant can be, there's no reason why this shouldn't be, either.

[Mark Padgett]

Maybe he used the "X" signal to indicate an "Xtra" hard foul?