KU @ Texas

[Nevadaref]

Thoughts on:
1. Review and intentional technical on Aldrich.
2. Morningstar's FT attempt for Aldrich (fouled out with the T).

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thoughts on:
1. Review and intentional technical on Aldrich.
2. Morningstar's FT attempt for Aldrich (fouled out with the T).

I personally don't understand the technical... I thought it looked as though the torso moved with the elbows.

Was Aldrich T a class B then? So they shoot them after the 1-and-1

-Josh

[bas2456]

Watching it real time, I'm not so sure the elbows came after the whistle. Seems like they were simultaneous.

Couldn't they just say intentional or flagrant foul then?

I'm not too familiar with NCAA rules...

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thoughts on:
1. Review and intentional technical on Aldrich.
2. Morningstar's FT attempt for Aldrich (fouled out with the T).

1. Thought it was probably the right call.

2. That was pretty funny. Don't think I've seen that one before.

[wildcatter]

1. I thought the elbow wasn't swinging faster than the torso. If the fouls occurred the same time, would have gone with the double personal. Apparently they did not. In which case, yes, intentional technical was the right call for dead ball contact.

2. Ref should have whistled it dead as soon as the ball popped out of his hand. Looked like a try. Never seen that happen before.

[Nevadaref]

1. The left elbow was purposely swung at the opponent. He extended.
The ball became dead when the player from Texas fouled. The timing of the whistle doesn't matter. Therefore, this is an intentional technical foul. In NCAAM, an INT T for dead ball contact is administered in the order of occurrence, in the NFHS manner, because possession to the opponent at the division line is also awarded.

2. Should have been whistled dead when the thrower's foot broke the plane of the FT line. The loss of the ball is okay as long as he can catch it again without violating.

[jdw3018]

Agree with your take Nevada. Pretty sure the officials were as caught off guard on the FT attempt as I was!

[Rich]

I watched the second half while loathing my elliptical machine.

There was a drive to the bucket where the player was gathering, fouled, and finished. The official counted the bucket, correctly. Bob Knight, of course, disagreed with this.

Real time I thought, "They'll go to the monitor and call it a dead ball technical foul" and I was right. There have been a few of these the past week and regardless of the player landing on the Kansas player, I *did* think the elbow came around faster than the torso.

[budjones05]

I think John Adams wants this contact to be a Technical this year. I do not have my rule books, but I think I saw it on the NCAA pre-season bulletin

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. The left elbow was purposely swung at the opponent. He extended.
The ball became dead when the player from Texas fouled. The timing of the whistle doesn't matter. Therefore, this is an intentional technical foul. In NCAAM, an INT T for dead ball contact is administered in the order of occurrence, in the NFHS manner, because possession to the opponent at the division line is also awarded.

2. Should have been whistled dead when the thrower's foot broke the plane of the FT line. The loss of the ball is okay as long as he can catch it again without violating.

I see.

It's the same in NFHS, I looked it up. I agree then.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

There was a drive to the bucket where the player was gathering, fouled, and finished. The official counted the bucket, correctly. Bob Knight, of course, disagreed with this.

While the player had ended his dribble, I don't believe that he had done anything to start his shooting motion prior to the foul. I agreed with Knight. This was not a foul in the act of shooting.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

While the player had ended his dribble, I don't believe that he had done anything to start his shooting motion prior to the foul. I agreed with Knight. This was not a foul in the act of shooting.

He was gathering it to start a shooting motion -- to me, that was part of starting the habitual motion that precedes the release of the ball. Matter of fact, I watched it a second time -- the ball was already in both hands and he was in the process of taking it up.

I'm counting that every time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The timing of the whistle doesn't matter.

You mean like when someone requests and is then granted a timeout?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

He was gathering it to start a shooting motion -- to me, that was part of starting the habitual motion that precedes the release of the ball. Matter of fact, I watched it a second time -- the ball was already in both hands and he was in the process of taking it up.

I'm counting that every time.

How do you know that he wasn't gathering his dribble to pass?

In my opinion, simply gathering the dribble is not enough. The official needs to see some kind of habitual motion that is part of the shooting action prior to the release of a try in order to award FTs.

Just what I take from the rules.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How do you know that he wasn't gathering his dribble to pass?

He didn't pass?

Admittedly, it's a fine line.

I've watched a lot of NCAAM the past few weeks (mostly recorded games as I've been working) and it seems like they are calling more of these shooting fouls than I remember in the past.