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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

And there are two categories missing.

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

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.

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

You are correct that fouls against a player in the act of shooting don't have a modifier. They are just personal fouls.

The others have modifiers--double, false double, etc.

I advocate sticking to the terms in the book and teaching it that way.

As a general rule, I do as well. But the rule book shows signs of having been rewritten dozens of times, to the point where the types of fouls have become more confusing than they need to be.

When I started doing basketball I sat down to work out a breakdown of the types of fouls, and I was frustrated that I couldn't figure it out. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that "shooting foul" is not explicitly defined in the rules. I don't think we do a service to newer officials by slavishly following rulebook usage in absolutely every case.

As you know, the rule book is not perfect. "Sticking to the terms in the book and teaching it that way" stifles improvement.

UNLV/Va Tech game today from tournament in Anaheim, CA.

Va Tech has the ball in their frontcourt. On the wing away from the ball a UNLV player raises his arms and catches the opponent in the face with an elbow. There is no whistle on the play. The Va Tech player goes down and remains down.

Va Tech proceeds to attack the goal from the opposite side and scores. The game is stopped, the Va Tech is attended to, and the officials go to the monitor.

They decide that the UNLV player was guilty of an intentional personal foul. 2FTs were awarded to the fouled Va Tech player who was allowed to remain in the game due to the decision to charge an intentional foul, and the game was resumed at the POI, which was the UNLV endline throw-in following the made goal by Va Tech.

So we now have two examples of crews going to the monitor for an intentional personal foul for an elbow above the shoulders which wasn't whistled during live action and resuming at the POI.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you won't see me teaching shooting fouls, combo fouls, or reaching fouls to those officials I instruct. ;)

Which is the proper procedure:

I am still looking for the section where in a situation like this (Intentional Foul) that the play is resumed at the POI.

NCAA Rulebook (Pg 125) Rule 10 Penalty e.2. Two free throws for: An intentional or flagrant personal foul and the ball awarded to a designated spot nearest to where the foul occurred.

NCAA Rulebook (Pg 152) Foul Name: Intentional Foul. Resumption of Play: Throw-in to the offended team at the designated spot.

Is there a casebook play or someplace in the rulebook that says that the stated play is a POI? Thanks.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I believe it has to be a POI because they went to the monitor and went back and "fixed" the Int. foul. Since there had been game action since the Int. Foul actually took place, they have to go POI.

Check your rulebook and AR's under the Use of Monitor sections...

If it were deemed a flagrant personal foul then you would give the ball back to the offended team without regard to the POI. For an intentional foul I need to look that up.

This is NOT a POI issue. It is an issue of penalizing infractions in the order of occurance. The possession part of a foul is null and void if there is a subsequent foul committed before that possession is granted.

Consider the case of one technical foul on team A followed by the another technical foul on team B. Does B ever get possession for team A's T? No. You shoot one T. Then the other T. Then A get's possession as part of the final foul in the sequence.

Sorry, Camron, but my example does NOT contain a 2nd foul. There was no foul whistled on the play at all. Action was stopped after a made goal to get attention for an injured player. So your explanation cannot apply.
It has to be either POI or enforce the possession part of the intentional personal foul.

My point was that while we haven't seen a clear approved ruling stating to resume at the POI, we now have two D1 crews going to the POI. I have faith that they have specific instruction on this which we aren't privy to and are getting it right.

I'd be curious to see the ruling on this...

A1 with the ball elbows B1 in the face but nothing is called. A1 looses the ball as a result and it deflects off of B1 before going OOB. The covering official indicates that it is A's ball. The officials go to the monitor to review the play and tag A1 with an intentional foul. Will it go to the POI on this one?