Here's a switch
 

The Kansas State coach was yelling at the refs because they didn't call a foul against his team! Of course, there were just a few seconds left in the game and his team was up by three, so he wanted the Xavier player to shoot only two. What happened was that after the "no call", his player fouled the Xavier player while he was shooting a three (he missed) but he made all three free throws which had the result of sending the game into OT.

When's the last time a coach yelled at you for NOT calling a foul against his team? Maybe never?

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.

I agree with that assessment.

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.

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? :mad:

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Nope. Use the "incidental contact" definition right out of rule 4(both NCAA & NFHS). Jalons already gave you the NCAA cite--4-40; NFHS is 4-27.

Got it. Thanks.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I was linked here. (Thanks, grunewar.)

DLH17, I would have passed on it, too. Personally, I'm not sold that that initial contact was missed, either. While there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact.

I've seen coaches get mad at situations like this before. I'm sure it's happened to me once or twice. We all know why the K-State coach got mad, but I think that's part of the bigger problem.

Should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard?

Some people think not to call this foul is "unfair." How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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

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......:rolleyes:

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.

They will not advance, next year is a different slate. At least that is what they tell us. Ask Jamie Lucie (spelling sounds like Lucky). ;)

Peace

I actually worked a game with a good friend who is a great official and works at a much higher level than me, and we had almost this exact situation come up. His position was we need to be aware that a team is wanting to foul, and "get" that first contact as soon as it happens so it doesn't escalate to a harder foul that may need to be called intentional. His feeling was we shouldn't appear to stop officiating at the end of the game.

My feeling is by simply "getting" that first contact, we actually have stopped officiating. Officiating is having to make those many decisions about what contact is incidental and what contact is a foul. If one team is trying to foul, and the other team kind of stands there, waiting to be fouled, then yes we can probably lower our threshold a little. But if that other team is purposely playing hard trying to avoid being fouled, then we have continue to officiate by making the same decisions about whether that contact is a foul at that point in the game as in the first half.

Don't think of it as "unfair" to the team trying to foul that we may rule some contact incidental, and they have to keep trying. It is just as "unfair" to the team trying to run time off the clock and we stop it for a marginal play that wouldn't have been a foul earlier in the game. Should we know one team is trying to foul? Absolutely, but not to change what we call, but rather to know and be aware so it doesn't surprise us when it happens.

In the context of the X/KS St. game, the T might tell us that he was straight-lined and wished he could've called that first contact. But my guess is he did see it, and chose to pass because the dribbler got passed the defender easily. If that exact play had happened in the first half, I don't think we would be talking about a "missed" call.

It is "Luckie." Did something happen with him this year or last?

The one commentator I've heard since that I agreed with (regardless of whether I felt a foul should have been called as was) was Digger Phelps, who said he always coached his players to make a play "through" the ball in that situation. If Clemente had played "through" the ball it would have required significant enough contact to "force" a foul call. Takes all the question out of it without the player having to worry about being called for an intentional foul.

Remember that situation where in the Regional Finals a call was made where a call was made by the Lead official on top of 3 point line and we all debated if the call was correct or not? Well he was the officials that made the call and according to some information, he was not moved on because of that call. But as you can see he is still working the tournament this year. And probably will go farther than he did last year barring a call that might be perceived as not right.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't even consider a foul on that.

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.

My philosophy is slightly different, and depends on how the offense is playing it. In this situation, if the offense has resigned themselves to getting fouled, I'll call the first contact quickly. If, however, they are trying to play through contact and are able to do so, make the defense commit an actual foul.

The coach was on one of the morning shows this morning. If I heard correctly, the plan was for the defender to "bearhug" the dribbler. Apparently no concern of the intentional call? He went on to say how the first guy missed the foul, and the second came in "a little too late." He complimented the offensive player for getting the shot up under the circumstances.

Totally agree. This play is a case study for both coaches and refs. I also submit this play is tough because it has the crew spread, somewhat stacked (both behind and across) and on the run. If it's not obvious, I would argue 95% of the top 96 would have passed. I think I would have as well.

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."