Duke/Baylor

[gslefeb]

For those that said Double T, who on Duke deserved a T and why?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

For those that said Double T, who on Duke deserved a T and why?

Pick one.
Why? For choosing Duke.

Seriously, though, good question.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

For those that said Double T, who on Duke deserved a T and why?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Pick one.
Why? For choosing Duke.

Seriously, though, good question.

I would assume Scheyer for swinging his elbows (with no contact) after the initial foul was called, at which point a Baylor player retaliated by giving him a little shove.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would assume Scheyer for swinging his elbows (with no contact) after the initial foul was called, at which point a Baylor player retaliated by giving him a little shove.

Then give those two a double T, and Acy gets his very own.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then give those two a double T, and Acy gets his very own.

Yep, Acy's T was totally separate from the action that is being debated as a possible Double T.

[gslefeb]

You are saying 3 T's ?

Most that said double T, wanted Acy and a Dukie to get one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

You are saying 3 T's ?

Most that said double T, wanted Acy and a Dukie to get one.

That's how I was reading them, too.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

You are saying 3 T's ?

Most that said double T, wanted Acy and a Dukie to get one.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's how I was reading them, too.

Problem with that is that Baylor committed 2 "shoves" during the dead ball period. One on Scheyer after he swung his elbows, then one on Smith a few seconds later.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would assume Scheyer for swinging his elbows (with no contact) after the initial foul was called, at which point a Baylor player retaliated by giving him a little shove.

Agreed.....

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You mean like the 2 blocks called on Prince from Tennessee within 3 seconds yesterday? The second one, especially, I thought would've been a strong PC foul.

Don't know if there are any differences between NCAA and NFHS on this or not, but in NFHS there are only 3 ways to lose a legal guarding position--1) move toward the ball handler at the time of contact; 2) ball handler gets head and shoulders past front of torso of defender; 3) defender is out of bounds. The contact on the front of the torso is a clear indicator of legal guarding position for a non-shooting ball handler, the fact he was moving backwards at the time means he wasn't moving forward, and he was clearly inbounds. 2nd was easily PC and I'm pretty sure the 1st would have been as well.

In the Duke/Baylor call, Zubek never got the front of his torso facing him, clearly indicated in the fact that the contact was in the "side-panel" area of the jersey (Zubek was definitely not turning to absorb contact). Block.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Anchor

In the Duke/Baylor call, Zubek never got the front of his torso facing him, clearly indicated in the fact that the contact was in the "side-panel" area of the jersey (Zubek was definitely not turning to absorb contact). Block.

You must have seen a different play than I did.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Anchor

Don't know if there are any differences between NCAA and NFHS on this or not, but in NFHS there are only 3 ways to lose a legal guarding position--1) move toward the ball handler at the time of contact; 2) ball handler gets head and shoulders past front of torso of defender; 3) defender is out of bounds. The contact on the front of the torso is a clear indicator of legal guarding position for a non-shooting ball handler, the fact he was moving backwards at the time means he wasn't moving forward, and he was clearly inbounds. 2nd was easily PC and I'm pretty sure the 1st would have been as well.

In the Duke/Baylor call, Zubek never got the front of his torso facing him, clearly indicated in the fact that the contact was in the "side-panel" area of the jersey (Zubek was definitely not turning to absorb contact). Block.

Check out post #9 in this thread. I went and watch the video on mmod.ncaa.com and can state with certainty that your opinion of the play is not accurate. Go watch the video. He is square to Acy before he jumps, the contact is not directly through Zoubek's chest because Acy jumps at an angle across the defender.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Anchor

In the Duke/Baylor call, Zubek never got the front of his torso facing him, clearly indicated in the fact that the contact was in the "side-panel" area of the jersey (Zubek was definitely not turning to absorb contact). Block.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You must have seen a different play than I did.

And me. No friggin way did it happen like that.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would assume Scheyer for swinging his elbows (with no contact) after the initial foul was called, at which point a Baylor player retaliated by giving him a little shove.

There was no foul called. It was a timeout.

And Scheyer swung his elbows simultaneous with the ref blowing the whistle, not after the whistle.

The case for a T on Scheyer is weak at best. If you want to go with a double T, you're better of sticking Nolan Smith with one, as he got a small, one-handed shove on Acy after the shove that did earn the T.