Kentucky/Washington
 

6:30 left in the 2nd half....

For those who saw it....

what do you think?

The T or the offensive elbow?

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

I would have thought that at least one of the three top officials there might have seen that in real time and called something. But then there was a earthquake at the same time so I guess they might have been distracted.

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.

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

The earthquake was impreceptable. They just didn't see it. They didn't even have any idea somthing happened until UW's coach questioned them about it during the timeout.

Can someone please sum up the sequence of events since I don't know WTF y'all are talking about?

thanks. :D

I didn't see the play in question, but be careful when you quote the new NCAA rule on a swinging elbow above the shoulder. It does not state that the contact cannot still be deemed incidental. The only change is that if you you have a swinging elbow and you call a foul for illegal contact and it is above the shoulder, the minimum penalty is intentional, as opposed to having the option of calling a common foul as you still do for swinging elbows below the shoulder.

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

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.

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.

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.