He seemed to reference it after a call was made when Xavier was trying to foul. Xavier made pretty marginal contact on a player who had already passed the ball and the foul was whistled.

Martin has a very distinct sideline demeanor. That said, officials seem to really like him, and in three years as a head coach he hadn't earned a technical until this year. He had two this year, I believe - may have been three. Most of his antics are directed toward his players.

Interesting take...I can see your point. That said, the 'direct scoring opportunity' was going to be a guarded 30+ footer. I fully believe the Xavier player made a very smart play - he believed K-State was coming to foul him before he got a shot up and took the shot hoping to get the call. And the call on the shot was definitely deserved.

Of course, I think the missed called was the clearly illegal screen the Xavier player set. :D

Blue font??? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzVZOIMswI]35 sec mark of replay :)

Did anyone else catch Martin's comment to the official near the end of the 1st OT? A KS player gained possession and there was "marginal" contact as he made a clean pass to Clemente. The foul was called, putting the passer on the line, where he missed 1 of 2, allowing X the opportunity to tie it up. Martin's comment was "You'll make that call, but not the one before?" Obviously, he would have rather had Clemente on the line. He has a point in that KS was put at a disadvantage by making that call, when not making it would have forced X to foul a better FT shooter.

I don't disagree with the no-call or the quick whistle on the second call. It does raise the question that others have discussed as to how these calls are made based on the "strategy" employed by a leading or trailing team.

Paralysis by analysis......:rolleyes:

The correct answer is that the official thought that one was a foul and the other one wasn't. That's how the guys at this level make those calls based on "stategy" or whatever. They use their judgment. And if somebody higher up the food chain doesn't like or agree with the bulk of their judgments, they won't be back next year to make any more judgments.

All Martin was doing was second-guessing the official. He has to though; I think that it's written somewhere in the NCAA Coaches Manual as being mandatory. All the official does in cases like this is nod his head and let it go in one ear and out the other.

They will not advance, next year is a different slate. At least that is what they tell us. Ask Jamie Lucie (spelling sounds like Lucky). ;)

Peace

I actually worked a game with a good friend who is a great official and works at a much higher level than me, and we had almost this exact situation come up. His position was we need to be aware that a team is wanting to foul, and "get" that first contact as soon as it happens so it doesn't escalate to a harder foul that may need to be called intentional. His feeling was we shouldn't appear to stop officiating at the end of the game.

My feeling is by simply "getting" that first contact, we actually have stopped officiating. Officiating is having to make those many decisions about what contact is incidental and what contact is a foul. If one team is trying to foul, and the other team kind of stands there, waiting to be fouled, then yes we can probably lower our threshold a little. But if that other team is purposely playing hard trying to avoid being fouled, then we have continue to officiate by making the same decisions about whether that contact is a foul at that point in the game as in the first half.

Don't think of it as "unfair" to the team trying to foul that we may rule some contact incidental, and they have to keep trying. It is just as "unfair" to the team trying to run time off the clock and we stop it for a marginal play that wouldn't have been a foul earlier in the game. Should we know one team is trying to foul? Absolutely, but not to change what we call, but rather to know and be aware so it doesn't surprise us when it happens.

In the context of the X/KS St. game, the T might tell us that he was straight-lined and wished he could've called that first contact. But my guess is he did see it, and chose to pass because the dribbler got passed the defender easily. If that exact play had happened in the first half, I don't think we would be talking about a "missed" call.

It is "Luckie." Did something happen with him this year or last?

The one commentator I've heard since that I agreed with (regardless of whether I felt a foul should have been called as was) was Digger Phelps, who said he always coached his players to make a play "through" the ball in that situation. If Clemente had played "through" the ball it would have required significant enough contact to "force" a foul call. Takes all the question out of it without the player having to worry about being called for an intentional foul.

Remember that situation where in the Regional Finals a call was made where a call was made by the Lead official on top of 3 point line and we all debated if the call was correct or not? Well he was the officials that made the call and according to some information, he was not moved on because of that call. But as you can see he is still working the tournament this year. And probably will go farther than he did last year barring a call that might be perceived as not right.

Peace

I didn't mean to imply he had a "direct scoring opportunity" as in a layup...that comment was about the more general case of passing on a foul that would wipe "guarenteed" points off the board.

In this case, the foul would have largely negated his "chance" to score, actually benefiting the fouler more. I'm not inclined to call an infraction that directly/immediately benefits the offender when the offended is no worse off.

If the K-State player wanted a foul, they need to, without committing an intentional, knock him off his path by getting in his path and committing a block or by making him lose the ball as a result of contact.

Anyone have a foul on the final shot of the first OT? You can see it at 1:37. Airborne shooter, bumped before he comes down...

He barely touched him and it didn't affect the shot in any way. Compared to the amount of contact that was "required" during that game in order to constitute a foul call, that fell way short. It wasn't ignored because of the game situation, it was ignored because it wasn't enough contact for a foul.

I was told that by Irene Hughes, the "World's Most Accurate Psychic". Yeah - right.

I've got nothing. Shooter was fading to the side and the contact was marginal and didn't really affect the shot or the landing.

Wouldn't even consider a foul on that.