Here's a switch

[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

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by DLH17

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

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...

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

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...

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

We keep using the word "marginal" in here, but as Jurassic alluded to, the proper term is "incidental." Whether the contact is marginal or severe is often unrelated to whether it's a foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

... Whether the contact is marginal or severe is often unrelated to whether it's a foul.

That depends on what supervisor you are working for or what camp you are attending.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That depends on what supervisor you are working for or what camp you are attending.

Good point, I forgot the two most important words with regard to my post, "by rule."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

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...

Wouldn't even consider a foul on that.

[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.