Kentucky/Washington

[The R]

Originally Posted by Spence

One of the elbow scenarios as I recall it:

UK's Brandon Knight had the ball on the wing with a defender on him. While bringing the ball from his left to his right he strikes the UW defender in the nose with his elbow. No call. Played on. Not sure of all of the details in between but I do know that eventually a foul was called on UW on a shot by UK inside. 2 shots. Go to a TV timeout.

During the TV timeout UW coach asks about the elbow by Knight. Officials then go back to the monitor and determine that it was a foul.

When we return from the commercial a foul is called on UK's Knight, 2 FTs are shot with the lanes cleared , and then they went back to UK shooting 2 FTs for the shooting foul that happened prior to the TV TO.

Was that handled correctly? Can you go back for something that occurred previously? Is there a limit on how far back in time you can go?

Spence it seems you have that play just about summed up with the exception of where the elbow make contact. From the clips I viewed it appeared that a left cheek of the defender was grazed with the elbow from the offense as opposed to taking it on the nose.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by zebraman

Embarrassing. I'm thinking that John Adams is not going to be real pleased about the way a few things that were handled in that game.

Hank Nichols still assigns this tournament although I'm sure John Adams (if he were watching) would not be pleased if it happened as described here.

Originally Posted by Spence

One of the elbow scenarios as I recall it:

UK's Brandon Knight had the ball on the wing with a defender on him. While bringing the ball from his left to his right he strikes the UW defender in the nose with his elbow. No call. Played on. Not sure of all of the details in between but I do know that eventually a foul was called on UW on a shot by UK inside. 2 shots. Go to a TV timeout.

During the TV timeout UW coach asks about the elbow by Knight. Officials then go back to the monitor and determine that it was a foul.

When we return from the commercial a foul is called on UK's Knight, 2 FTs are shot with the lanes cleared , and then they went back to UK shooting 2 FTs for the shooting foul that happened prior to the TV TO.

Was that handled correctly? Can you go back for something that occurred previously? Is there a limit on how far back in time you can go?

I'm interested in this play and how it was adjudicated.

If it happened as you described then I think they did it wrong (IMO).

After reviewing the monitor and discovering an "intentional foul" from an elbow, the crew should have:

Penalize KY Knight for an "intentional foul."

KY Knight or whichever UK Player got fouled: gets 2 FTs for being fouled before the TV timeout with the lane cleared.

UW player who got elbowed: 2 FTs for being elbowed above the head with the lane cleared.

UW gets the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot where the elbow foul was.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Hank Nichols still assigns this tournament although I'm sure John Adams (if he were watching) would not be pleased if it happened as described here.



I'm interested in this play and how it was adjudicated.

If it happened as you described then I think they did it wrong (IMO).

After reviewing the monitor and discovering an "intentional foul" from an elbow, the crew should have:

Penalize KY Knight for an "intentional foul."

KY Knight or whichever UK Player got fouled: gets 2 FTs for being fouled before the TV timeout with the lane cleared.

UW player who got elbowed: 2 FTs for being elbowed above the head with the lane cleared.

UW gets the ball out of bounds nearest to the spot where the elbow foul was.

Nope...personal fouls are penalized in the order they occur. The rule is written in the context of the reviewed foul being the only foul.

I think they got it right.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't do many games with a monitor, so I tend to ignore those rules, but you can go to the monitor withing the CE timeframe to determine if a flagrant foul occurred. If it did, you can then assess it. You cannot assess a "common" foul based on the monitor, nor can you use the monito to "downgrade" a foul that has previously been called flagrant. (I'm not sure if / how intentional fits in here -- I don't think you can use the monitor to assess an intentional foul.)

So, it seems like they were right to go to the monotor, but wrong to assess anything other than a flagrant foul.

You can...
NCAA 10-13-2d:

Determine if a contact flagrant foul occurred. When it is determined that a (men) contact flagrant foul did not occur but an intentional personal, contact dead ball foul or (women) a player substitute technical foul for dead ball contact did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.

[Adam]

I wasn't aware they could go back and look at a no-call, but it doesn't seem there's anything preventing it if they're ostensibly looking for a flagrant foul.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Nope...personal fouls are penalized in the order they occur. The rule is written in the context of the reviewed foul being the only foul.

I think they got it right.

It wasn't a personal foul, it was an "intentional foul."

So are you saying that even though there is an "intentional foul" by definition as explained in this play, the offended team does NOT get the ball at the spot of the foul after the 2 FTs?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

It wasn't a personal foul, it was an "intentional foul."

So are you saying that even though there is an "intentional foul" by definition as explained in this play, the offended team does NOT get the ball at the spot of the foul after the 2 FTs?

It was an intentional personal foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

It wasn't a personal foul, it was an "intentional foul."

So are you saying that even though there is an "intentional foul" by definition as explained in this play, the offended team does NOT get the ball at the spot of the foul after the 2 FTs?

Sure they do, unless there is another foul that occurs after it. As bob points out, it is a personal foul; and personal fouls are penalized in the order of occurance.

Thought experiment: are there other situations where an intentional foul penalty wouldn't include a throwin for the offended team?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

It wasn't a personal foul, it was an "intentional foul."

Here's a first pass at a taxonomy. I'm sure someone will have suggestions for improving it.

1. Types of Foul:
Personal, Technical

2. Sub-types of Foul
Personal Fouls: Common, Shooting, Combo, Intentional, Flagrant
Technical Fouls: [regular], Intentional, Flagrant

3a. Personal Fouls: live ball contact or dead-ball contact by/on airborne shooter
Common Personal Fouls: illegal personal contact, including player control and team control fouls
Shooting Personal Fouls: illegal contact on shooter during tap or try
Combo Personal Fouls: double or false double, multiple or false multiple, or simultaneous foul
Intentional Personal Fouls: excessive contact, attempting to neutralize opponent's obvious advantage
Flagrant Personal Fouls: violent and savage contact (could be accidental)

3b. Technical Fouls
Technical Fouls: Team, Substitute, Player, Bench, Coach, Unsporting
Intentional Technical Foul: Intentional foul when ball is dead
Flagrant Technical Foul: Flagrant contact when ball is dead, flagrant substitute, player, bench, coach, or unsporting foul

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's a first pass at a taxonomy. I'm sure someone will have suggestions for improving it.

1. Types of Foul:
Personal, Technical

2. Sub-types of Foul
Personal Fouls: Common, Shooting, Combo, Intentional, Flagrant
Technical Fouls: [regular], Intentional, Flagrant

3a. Personal Fouls: live ball contact or dead-ball contact by/on airborne shooter
Common Personal Fouls: illegal personal contact, including player control and team control fouls
Shooting Personal Fouls: illegal contact on shooter during tap or try
Combo Personal Fouls: double or false double, multiple or false multiple, or simultaneous foul
Intentional Personal Fouls: excessive contact, attempting to neutralize opponent's obvious advantage
Flagrant Personal Fouls: violent and savage contact (could be accidental)

3b. Technical Fouls
Technical Fouls: Team, Substitute, Player, Bench, Coach, Unsporting
Intentional Technical Foul: Intentional foul when ball is dead
Flagrant Technical Foul: Flagrant contact when ball is dead, flagrant substitute, player, bench, coach, or unsporting foul

A nice effort and a decent summary, but combo and shooting are not rules book terms for types of fouls.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A nice effort and a decent summary, but combo and shooting are not rules book terms for types of fouls.

And there are two categories missing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And there are two categories missing.

Are those terms included in his definition of combo or are you thinking of something such as administrative?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And there are two categories missing.

Methinks Mike might have included them in "common"....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Methinks Mike might have included them in "common"....

Ah, I see them included in common. I swear I read that thing 5 times before posting.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A nice effort and a decent summary, but combo and shooting are not rules book terms for types of fouls.

Right, but the definition of common foul excludes them, so I needed to make up a term to include them.