I got nothing follow by on the line for 3. Its about angles and RSBQ. New T's angle on the initial play wasn't great and they were at full speed. I would also argue this is a tough-a$$ed scenario because it was transition strong side up against the sideline. Call the Obvious...and he did.

The rules are basically the same. Clemente's undetected foul, however, would not have been an intentional IMO. He fouled the dribbler across his arms in an "attempt" to reach for the ball. The reason, IMO, that it was not called are in order:

1. The Trail was straight-lined and didn't see the contact
2. The contact was marginal and did not hinder the ball-handler

Was it marginal or illegal? If you call all contact a foul, Im sorry, you wont last. You might be by the book correct, but you wont last.

Is it correct to say this falls somewhere within the "advantage/disadvantage" philosophy? Seeing the play through? This is my reasoning on the play. Nothing really impeded the XU player from completing his dribble across half court and past his player setting the screen nearer the 3 pt arc.

Nope. Use the "incidental contact" definition right out of rule 4(both NCAA & NFHS). Jalons already gave you the NCAA cite--4-40; NFHS is 4-27.

Got it. Thanks.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I was linked here. (Thanks, grunewar.)

DLH17, I would have passed on it, too. Personally, I'm not sold that that initial contact was missed, either. While there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact.

I've seen coaches get mad at situations like this before. I'm sure it's happened to me once or twice. We all know why the K-State coach got mad, but I think that's part of the bigger problem.

Should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard?

Some people think not to call this foul is "unfair." How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

I am sorry Tommy, they were down by 3. Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. But the point is still right on, if you call a foul in that situation that would be improper as most teams do not try to foul and it would have put Xavier in my opinion at a disadvantage. And the Xavier player drove right by the defender and was not interpreted at all (as you said).

Peace

First, I'm a K-State alum and had a vested interest in this one, obviously. It was a truly incredible game.

My question - should this play be ruled differently than a foul at the end of the game when a team is down? That's my question - the strategy was to foul, just as if Kansas State had been down. It's a strategy that's employed often - not always, but often - when a team is up 3.

I have always subscribed to the theory that when a team is employing a strategy to foul at the end of the game that you get it early. Players need to make contact and foul, but no reason to force a player to escalate contact. If K-State had been down in that scenario I think that foul is absolutely called, and I think it should have been called in this situation as well.

Xavier was called for a foul on very little contact on a player who didn't even have the ball toward the end of the first overtime. If you don't call the first, it's tough to justify that one, IMO.

It was certainly a crazy set of plays. I'd be curious to know the discussion among the officials and the supervisor afterwards. Would the NCAA advocate this type of foul be called? Did the official pass on the contact or not see the contact? Certainly makes for some good discussion.

Someone earlier referenced how P.O.'d Martin was after that sequence. The cameras caught him blowing what I think was a F Bomb - not sure if it was at a player and/or an official. Point is, if it was directed at an official, was it because he told one of the crew that his team was going to foul?

IMO, this is a gray area and/or game awareness situation. If the team was down and trying to foul I would think many officials would call it. However, if this was in the first half/quarter of a game this contact would likely be passed on. That would be two different outcomes (foul, no foul), for three different situations.

I understand your question, but I think the crew did the right thing. I have been in situations like this before when a team is down by three and the other team is likely to foul. We come together during a timeout and talk about it. If similar contact takes place, let the player have the opportunity to shoot the shot.

Martin drops F bombs like I say "can you pass the mustard." I believe it was directed at the player who fouled on the shot.

That said, I was hoping someone would ask Martin after the game if he informed the officials that K-State would try to foul if the final free throw went and they were up 3. Nobody did.

I believe if I were a coach, I'd inform the officials. And as an official, I'm aware in taht situation that there may be an attempt to foul before a try can be attempted.

I thought it was a good no call. Contact was minimal and deemed incidental. The idiot announcer did a great job to selling the general public on the fact that this is a missed call, almost Packer-esque. I also think Martin appears to be a pain in the butt on the sideline. He even appeared to make reference to that no-call in OT.

None of us will know unless we talk to one of the officials on the game. If it was directed towards an official, coaches at that level leeway to say things a high school coach wouldn't get away with. A college coach at that level has everything riding on his or her team's success.

The difference is that the X player was better off without the foul call....he had an opportunity to score in front of him. And there lies the difference.

If it were a normal situation with KSt down, I'd also pass on a deliberate foul IFF the X player had a direct scoring opportunity available.