Good no call on 208.

The player hurt his ankle rather than his knee. Here is the play in question.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xz2oUbkapBU?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

IMO he clearly did travel.

I remember wondering about that too...Unless he yelled timeout and we didn't hear it, should have been a travel.

I originally saw a foul. Neither player had principle of verticality. Had the UNC player gone straight up instead of leaning forward, then he may have gotten the call as the KY player clearly stepped toward him as he was going up. BUT, he did NOT initiate the contact IMO. "Make the shot, and play defense." He had an opening to go straight up and have a clear shot, but he did not take it. By going for 4, he got none. I'm good with the no call.

204....no travel...but VERY close...it appeared that the ball was caught between strides as the right foot came down, step with the left, and the right foot was just about the touch again when the ball was released on the shot. Again, it was VERY close and looked funny at live speed but funny isn't a travel.

205...flop. No question.

207...good continuous motion call.

208....very close. I think Liggins may have been moving slightly forward at the time of contact. He remained on the floor (which technically doesn't matter but makes it a lot easier to not actually commit a foul) and had his arms sufficiently vertical. However the UNC player had a good look at a shot and gave it up to make contact. Not all officials will give a player that foul....particularly when the defender didn't bite on the pump fake.

212...Travel.

You know what sucks the most about this tournament? I had Ohio State in the pool. :(

212: No quesiton he traveled. Looks like the lead got straight lined, and by the time the C was going to go get it, he went with the injury instead. I'm ok with a no-call on an injury play like this.

It didn't look like the lead was straight lined at all to me. Look like he had a pretty direct line of sight or a decent enough view. He just didn't call it for whatever reason.

Am I the only one who thinks that #212 was a foul on the defender for tripping.

He wasn't tripped. He turned his left ankle on the court when he landed. Taylor reached for the ball but he didn't trip him.

Jay R - No you are not the only one who thinks 212 was a foul.

Rebounder goes up straight for rebound. opponent comes underneath him and rebounder lands on opponents foot and falls down. foul on opponent - new defensive player.

Watch the video closely. The rebounder lands on the opponents foot, not the floor.

Watch a little more closely. Taylor's right foot was in the air when the rebounder initially landed and then Taylor himself actually trips over the rebounder when he does make contact.

He whacks him pretty good in Post 204...don't penalize the offense for being strong.

I've looked at this many times. My first impession was a foul on White 11 for contacting the rebounder's leg and sending to the floor. I have no problem with a no call in NBA rules or FIBA rules where falling to the floor is not trvalling. But a travel here IMHO is not the right call. If White 11 doesn't come from behind and contact the rebounder's leg, I believe he is not going to fall.

He fell because he damn near snapped his leg in half, not because of the contact with Taylor's leg. Taylor contacted the rebounder's leg because the rebounder's leg popped out towards Taylor


.........IMVHO :D