Here's a switch

[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.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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

The sarcasm flew right over the top. Guess I shoulda used blue font.

[just another ref]

Is the NCAA definition of intentional the same, more or less, as NFHS? I thought the non-call would have to be intentional or nothing. The defender grabbed at the dribbler, making no attempt to play the ball. Was intentional not a possibility with a little more contact, or is this treated like the NBA does it in this situation?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is the NCAA definition of intentional the same, more or less, as NFHS? I thought the non-call would have to be intentional or nothing. The defender grabbed at the dribbler, making no attempt to play the ball. Was intentional not a possibility with a little more contact, or is this treated like the NBA does it in this situation?

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

[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.

[Raymond]

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.

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.

I think the operative word here is marginal. It wouldn't have been a foul at the beginning of the game either.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by jalons

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.

I was watching the game at home with the wife and when that play occurred, she thought a foul was missed. When I disagreed, she was a upset that I disagreed for the reasons being discussed here.

All the guys in the office this morning thought it was a missed call, as well, and just looked at me weird when I said I would've probably passed on it.

[Larks]

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.

[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