Nova / Syracuse rescinded intentional
 

Foul on a breakaway late. L calls an INT on a foul that has considerable contact. From my barstool I could see it going either way.

C gets with the L and they talk. Then they review on the monitor. Then they apparently rescinded the INT. Boheim was not happy.

Is this another case (I'm thinking about the blarge in the Wisconsin/PSU game yesterday) where officials just make it up as they go?

I really can't blame Boheim on that one. The L definitely gave the intentional signal. I thought they were reviewing it to see if they should upgrade it to a flagrant. Instead, they wiped the intentional. I'm not sure how they could do that under NCAA rules.

Some wierd calls in that game.

It seemed as though they were searching for a camera angle that showed the official actually making the intentional foul signal, and they didn't find one.

The announcer seemed sure that an intentional was called. What if the official was going up to make the signal...then decided that he had better get a second opinion? The TV replays were inconclusive with what signal the official gave.

Naw. The L definitely made the intentional signal. I can't believe he'd try to say anything different either.

That's my point. And I thought it was a perfectly appropriate intentional call, too. And the L clearly, *clearly* signaled the intentional.

My guess is that the C talked the L out of it and it was never reported to the table. Then they usedthe review to see if they should "upgrade" it back to an intentional or to a flagrant. If that's considered an OK way to back out of an intentional, well, what's the point of the preliminary signal in the first place?

I'd love to see Adams take on these calls.

Apparently a signal is not considered binding. What a novel idea.

I must have missed him signaling intentional. Syracuse ends up winning anyways, but I didn't realize you could rescind a call like that. Or can you? What's the NCAA theory on this?

By rule, can they make that type of change after looking at the monitor?

Who were the officials?

From everything I read, they can upgrade a foul -- they cannot downgrade the foul. I'm sure Scrappy or another NCAAM official could confirm or refute this.

Just saw the replay. The L clearly, though somewhat indecisively, went with the intentional. Maybe the C was stating that it was in 'his area' since it was on his side, but it probably was on the 'talking points dvd' in any event.

I just saw the replay again on ESPN. The L definitely gave the intentional signal.

That's my understanding too. They sureashell downgraded this one though.

Me too. He blasted him on a layup.

John Cahill, Michael Stephens, and Ed Corbett.

Cahill and Corbett have both worked National Championship games.

You sure? I saw Jamie Luckie on the floor.

No, you didn't.

Syracuse Orange vs Villanova Wildcats - February 21, 2011 - College Basketball - StatSheet.com

http://suathletics.syr.edu/documents...21.pdf?id=4862

Fair enough, my bad. They look alike. You should tell Sean McDonough then too.

It wasn't your bad. Doesn't matter what any website or box score says, Ed Corbett was not on that court tonight, at least not during any highlights ESPN showed.

Crew was indeed Cahill, Luckie, and Stephens. And FWIW, Luckie was the C to Stephens's L on the rescinded intentional foul.

Now I'm just plain confused. The box score and Stat Sheet says Ed Corbett, but you and Sean McDonough say Jamie Luckie...

One of these men has probably the second-sleightest build of any of the top-level DI officials (Mike Sanzere). The other is Jamie Luckie.

Mistaking Corbett for Luckie would be like mistaking John Stockton for Billy Paultz.

In other words, I know who I saw;)

It was Luckie...not Corbett.

Video here (don't see an embed code, sorry):

Syracuse Orange vs. Villanova Wildcats - Recap - February 21, 2011 - ESPN

Oh My.....
 

According to this report, the official denied making the intentional foul call in the first place. Unfortunately for him, his signal for that call was caught on tape. The speculation was that he was over-ruled.

The disappearing intentional foul: Syracuse's win over Villanova was full of bizarre plays | syracuse.com

Is it possible he signaled, then retracted the intentional right away only to go look at the tape?

Who knows? The only facts we know for sure is that he gave the signal for an intentional foul but an intentional foul was never assessed. And that's what looks bad. Methinks he was awfully lucky that Syracuse ended up winning. That lessens the speculation.

They went to the video after they retracted the intentional to determine whether or not it was flargrant.

If this is what they did then he would not be happy. He put out a video in which an official signalled a foul (apparent elbow foul) and then after replay review they rescinded the foul altogther. He didn't like that at all.

why did they not call the violation in the game when the Vill player reached over the end line and stopped the inbounds pass? Triche was asking for the call to be made. I dont think i have ever seen it called in a game and it happens all the time under the basket. in our local games this year we have had several times where the D has knocked the ball out of the in bounds players hands with no call.. seems like a pretty simple rule to enforce but seldom does.

Didn't see the play, so this is just a question: Did the defender reach across before or after the pass was released?

Also, WRT your local games; usually what happens when it's no-called is the thrower has reached the ball over the OOB plane.

High School rules it would be a Tech, not a violation, if a player reaches across and knocks ball out of thrower's hands. It is nothing if a player reaches across and knocks down a inbound pass when the ball is out of the thrower's hands. Not sure what NCAA is.

And you know this? Or you're speculating?

That is indeed my understanding. You can always upgrade if you have a monitor, but you can't downgrade. Because of this, I've been told to simply never give an intentional signal (if there's a monitor available).

From the article that someone linked...

"The three officials then went to the replay monitor at midcourt, but not to determine if the foul was intentional. Through a Big East Conference representative, the officials said there were checking to see if the foul was flagrant."

I saw this play, and from the TV angle, it looked like the defender deflected the ball AFTER the pass had been released, thus the OOB violation and nothing more. Triche was pleading his case, but the official was explaining why it was just an OOB.

Which, by rule, is correct. But I don't think that is in dispute. What's in dispute is whether there was an intentional foul indicated at the spot of the foul. If that was the case they cannot use the monitor and then downgrade it to a regular ole personal foul.

The question then is whether the official can "retract" his prelim signal here. Or is this the 2nd situation where a prelim signal is binding (blarges being the other situation)? It looks horrible, but it is within the rules?

I can only speak for myself. If I were to rescind an intentional call in this situation I would:

1. Do so before going to the monitor
2. Also, before going to the monitor, clearly explain to the coaches that I had rescinded my IF and that we now constulting to monitor to determine if it was flagrant.

That being said, I don't think John Adams wants officials signalling IF on the spot, then rescinding the IF, and then saying "well, we're going to the monitor to see if we have a flagrant foul". Just not a logical sequence, IMO.

With #1, there's no way to know from watching the game if he did this.
With the rest, I completely concur; but again, just because you explain it to the coaches does not mean the fans and TV guys are going to understand what happened.

It does look bad, though, regardless. If nothing else, it's an issue of poor mechanics and makes you look indecisive. Sort of like the block/charge call where the official starts to go with the PC signal before dropping his hands down for a block call.

Naw, that's not in dispute at all. If you look at the video that mbyron linked, you'll see the L signal an intentional foul.

Syracuse Orange vs. Villanova Wildcats - Recap - February 21, 2011 - ESPN

Can't see video but I trust what you are saying. But according to reports it's being said that the officials stated there was no IF. And the fact that they went to the monitor and came away with a 2-shot personal foul gives that report some credence. Because by rule you can't downgrade a foul using the monitor.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee;732939]Naw, that's not in dispute at all. If you look at the video that mbyron linked, you'll see the L signal an intentional foul.
QUOTE]

There is no debate. He made a preliminary signal on a double-whistle that was not his call. It was not an intentional foul. The L had no chance to see the play up top because of the backboard, which is exactly why it was not his call. The C explained that to him, told him there was no way it was an intentional foul, and the L smartly and correctly deferred to the C. The crew did the right thing, and nobody will be penalized for it at all. End of story.

Well then, we may as well close the thread. :rolleyes:

Am I going to have to give you a list of people not to quote?:mad:

It's not the L's call on a fast break shot? Gee, you learn something new every day.

You're really saying that the L couldn't see the contact because the backboard blocked his view of the contact? You're saying the contact was OVER 10 feet off the ground. Do you know how ridiculous that is? Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, take a look at the level the contact was actually made at.

And you know all of what was said...how?:confused: You really know exactly every single word the the C said to the L? And you know for absolutely sure then that the L smartly and correctly deferred to the C?

Or are you just oracling to hear yourself oracle again? If so, try not to get any of your oraclings on you. They're harder than hell to get out in the wash.

That's the problem, Newz. The officials are saying that there was no IF, yet a signal was definitely given for the IF. What hasn't been given afaik is an explanation of why the IF signal was given and then an IF was not applied. If they hadda done exactly what you recommended doing in your post #37 above, it wouldn't have looked so bad and we wouldn't be discussing this.

I wondered about that, so I went back and cut most of his post out. You'll have to read JR's post to get the real drivel.

Thanks. You're a real pal. Send me a pm so I can return the favor some day.:cool:

[QUOTE=TheOracle;732949]Bullspit. It was certainly intentional and excessive contact to boot.

of course the head of the BE officials also ruled today the correct call should have been excessive use of force 2 shots and the ball..

In other words, an intentional foul. QED.

[QUOTE=RichMSN;732995]We can debate this all day long. [I agree with you, Rich]. But, what happens in the woodshed, stays in the woodshed.

Quit whining and enjoy your weather.

Excessive use of force? Isn't that supposed to cost him his badge?

Two weeks without pay while the tough yet sympathetic watch commander requests his gun and badge.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee;732963]It's not the L's call on a fast break shot? Gee, you learn something new every day.

I guess you really don't know much. On a fast break, the L takes his side, and the C takes the other. Glad I'm able to teach you something.

[QUOTE=TheOracle;733022]You don't work much men's college, do you? If you do, you'd better study up quick before you're found out.

Are you talking to JR or TheOracle?

[QUOTE=TheOracle;733022]Glad we're all able to see you're a freaking clown.

For everyone else - is this OldSchool reincarnated?

And for crying out loud, can you please learn how to quote someone? Here's a hint: Just hit the quote button and don't try deleting stuff.

The contact occurred just about at the middle of the lane. It's not realistic to expect the lead to not have a whistle on this type of play with such contact. I'd contend that the lead had an excellent view of the play, and that the backboard didn't impair his view of play at all. I'd even say that the initial intentional foul call was correct due to excessive contact. And it seems as if the Big East supervisors agree it was an intentional foul (well at least to one poster...still looking for an article to confirm this).

For once, I'm not engaging (intentionally or not) JR:D

Could you give us a citation from the relevant Officials Manual that backs up this claim?

Then you might want to consider fixing that post. ;)

"a signal" isn't. "two opposing signals" are. :p

Which makes even less sense.

Are we about to start another blarge discussion where it's JAR vs. the world? :confused:

I doubt it. My head still hurts from the last one.

He has the blessing of That Old School Oracle Guy, though.

You just combined at least 4 years of forum history and jokes in that one sentence. :cool:

I saw that, too, and noticed that they were not quoting the officials, they were quoting Boeheim (I think). So who knows what the officials actually said. :rolleyes:

Kinda funny
 

Typical fanboyism...even have some of them who apparently visit the forum.