Here's a switch

[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

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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.

[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

[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?