Here's a switch

[APG]

To be fair, there was a foul there. Of course the secondary defender shouldn't of had his hands in the proverbial cookie jar when the player started his shooting motion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

To be fair, there was a foul there. Of course the secondary defender shouldn't of had his hands in the proverbial cookie jar when the player started his shooting motion.

Trail was straight-lined on the first foul attempt.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Trail was straight-lined on the first foul attempt.

I agree with that assessment.

[JRutledge]

I do not think there was a foul there. If there was, it should be more than a common or regular foul. It should have been intentional. Unless the player was restricted, I do not see a foul there. And I see why it was not called. The ball handler blew right by the guy. This is not the same thing as an end of the game foul where they are trying to foul to get back into the game. The game was tied. It has got to be there. That would have been suspect.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think there was a foul there. If there was, it should be more than a common or regular foul. It should have been intentional. Unless the player was restricted, I do not see a foul there. And I see why it was not called. The ball handler blew right by the guy. This is not the same thing as an end of the game foul where they are trying to foul to get back into the game. The game was tied. It has got to be there. That would have been suspect.

Peace

Agree...on top of that the defender was getting bumped off the play by a screen. Great no call.

[rockyroad]

So was anyone else able to read lips when the K-State coach (Martin?) was shown screaming down the court right after this play?? He clearly screamed "What the f@ck are you doing?" No idea if it was at the official who didn't call the foul, or the player who fouled the shooter...either way, seems like he got away with that one.

I have not had the "pleasure" of watching him (the K-State coach) much - not many K-State games shown in this area. He's a peach, isn't he?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The game was tied. It has got to be there. That would have been suspect.

Peace

Rut, I think Xavier was down by three when this play occurred. Holloway (I think) made three free throws to tie the game and send it into overtime.

I think they didn't call the contact because it was marginal - didn't interrupt RSBQ - and allowing the player to play through it gives Xavier a chance to win. The shooting foul was an easy call, but without the foul they were giving Xavier a chance to shoot for the win.

If K-State was down, I bet there would have been a quick whistle on that play.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Rut, I think Xavier was down by three when this play occurred. Holloway (I think) made three free throws to tie the game and send it into overtime.

I think they didn't call the contact because it was marginal - didn't interrupt RSBQ - and allowing the player to play through it gives Xavier a chance to win. The shooting foul was an easy call, but without the foul they were giving Xavier a chance to shoot for the win.

If K-State was down, I bet there would have been a quick whistle on that play.

Uh oh. Around here, a foul is a foul. Doesn't matter if it's at the beginning, middle or end of a game. Call the foul.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Uh oh. Around here, a foul is a foul. Doesn't matter if it's at the beginning, middle or end of a game. Call the foul.

Uh oh my a$$. Try on some game awareness.

You are obviously a confused official. Someone gets hit by an elbow and you don't want to call something - until other officials show you the light. Now, there is marginal contact on a play like this and you want to tell someone what they should call?

Some people should be seen and not heard.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Uh oh. Around here, a foul is a foul. Doesn't matter if it's at the beginning, middle or end of a game. Call the foul.

So rule 4-40 doesn't apply in your area? All fouls require contact but not all contact is a foul. FWIW, I agree with JRut in the fact that if this is a foul, it is intentional.

[Larks]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Uh oh. Around here, a foul is a foul. Doesn't matter if it's at the beginning, middle or end of a game. Call the foul.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Rut, I think Xavier was down by three when this play occurred. Holloway (I think) made three free throws to tie the game and send it into overtime.

I think they didn't call the contact because it was marginal - didn't interrupt RSBQ - and allowing the player to play through it gives Xavier a chance to win. The shooting foul was an easy call, but without the foul they were giving Xavier a chance to shoot for the win.

If K-State was down, I bet there would have been a quick whistle on that play.

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

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.