The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 23, 2010, 11:39pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Kentucky/Washington

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

For those who saw it....

what do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 23, 2010, 11:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
The T or the offensive elbow?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 12:18am
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Orginally, I was talking about the T (elbow hadn't happened yet)..... but how about both now.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 12:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 208
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.
__________________
A Double Bonus is not really double.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 12:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 12:43am
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by The R View Post
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.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 12:48am
ODJ ODJ is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 390
I thought the UK player instigated the first foul. He bodied up the UW player and flopped.
The crew struggled tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 12:49am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant View Post
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 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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 09:16am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Can someone please sum up the sequence of events since I don't know WTF y'all are talking about?

thanks.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 10:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Racine, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer View Post
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.
__________________
Every game is a big game
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 11:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 11:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,910
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.
__________________
"To learn, you have to listen. To improve, you have to try." (Thomas Jefferson)
Z

Last edited by zebraman; Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:08pm.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 02:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 521
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 24, 2010, 02:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spence View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stanford-Washington IRISHMAFIA Softball 6 Mon May 11, 2009 12:29pm
Washington v. USC slow whistle Basketball 24 Sun Jan 25, 2009 06:24pm
BYU - Washington BktBallRef Football 81 Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:16am
Washington/UAB Clock - What did you have? Mark Dexter Basketball 17 Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:57pm
End of 1st Half BI -- Washington/UAB rainmaker Basketball 5 Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:08pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1