Kentucky/Washington

[The R]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Orginally, I was talking about the T (elbow hadn't happened yet)..... but how about both now.

The trail was not at an angle to see the elbow after he called the TO. Seems to me they got it right after going to the monitor.

The elbow should have been incidental and ignored. There was hardly any contact there. I'm guessing had they not spent so much time watching the monitor on the T then the Washington coach would not have made such a big deal out of the elbow.

[APG]

Originally Posted by The R

The trail was not at an angle to see the elbow after he called the TO. Seems to me they got it right after going to the monitor.

The elbow should have been incidental and ignored. There was hardly any contact there. I'm guessing had they not spent so much time watching the monitor on the T then the Washington coach would not have made such a big deal out of the elbow.

I think the NCAA doesn't allow this type of contact to be incidental (assuming you're speaking about the second play). If there's an elbow above the shoulders, I believe by rule you have at minimum an intentional foul. I was a bit surprised they didn't get it in real time but believe they made the correct call after going to the monitor.

[ODJ]

I thought the UK player instigated the first foul. He bodied up the UW player and flopped.
The crew struggled tonight.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think the NCAA doesn't allow this type of contact to be incidental (assuming you're speaking about the second play). If there's an elbow above the shoulders, I believe by rule you have at minimum an intentional foul. I was a bit surprised they didn't get it in real time but believe they made the correct call after going to the monitor.

Not true...we can still have incidental contact...the penalty change is on a "swinging" elbow above the shoulders.

[The R]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think the NCAA doesn't allow this type of contact to be incidental (assuming you're speaking about the second play). If there's an elbow above the shoulders, I believe by rule you have at minimum an intentional foul. I was a bit surprised they didn't get it in real time but believe they made the correct call after going to the monitor.

AllPurp the play was such that the contact was not more than a brush. It was glancing contact at best. The shot was not good solid contact. The defense did a little acting too. Had that not happened no one would have known there was contact.

I am not sure if this would change the outcome of the ruling or not.

[zebraman]

On another note, when are D-1 officials going to get some cajones and whack a coach (in this case, Calipari) when he is out on the floor screaming "What the F#($ was that?" in protest of a call so obviously that even TV viewers can see it?

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.

[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?

[bob jenkins]

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 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.

[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.

[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.