Here's a switch

[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.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by DLH17

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?

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.

[doubleringer]

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

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.

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by DLH17

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?

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

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.

[jkohls]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jkohls

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......

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.