Speaking of your tagline....Heard that one of the Morris twins told a VCU player that the run was over at the pre-game. He was right.:D

Wow...if that's true, it reminds me of the Seahawks/Packers playoff game a few years back. Went into OT, Seattle wins the toss and Hasselbeck says "We want the ball and we're going to score."

Three plays later he throws an interception that the Pack runs back for a TD...

Sometimes it's better to just keep your damn mouth shut.

Play from the UK/UNC game:

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

Possible missed travel call...important call/no call since a foul came subsequent to it.

Play from UK/UNC game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WVzIslzW454?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

In the chat room, it was discussed whether this is a call we pass on? Should there have been a more patient whistle?

Play from UK/UNC game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-L0vYJ6IlTs?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

This one is dedicated to BBR. :D Charge or a flop?

RE: Post 204
It's borderline, I think. He plays through and gets a good shot, but how difficult was the shot due to the contact? I probably pass on it, but I can see situations (game getting rough) where I'd need to get it.

On 205:
Sure looks like an Oscar to me, but the decision seems to have been made before he fell. Maybe he was anticipating something; guessing he'd like to have that back.

Play from UK/UNC game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xi8YrA3GtCk?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

I thought this was a good call on the continuation IMO...this is exactly why we don't say "on the floor."

From the UK/UNC game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qkYhh2v_Y4U?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

The late three point attempt and no call...agree/disagree?

On #207, I have a different question. Why a foul?

Good no-call on #208. Shooter jumped into defender's chest. The defender takes a risk with his hands down, but contact is never made with his arms/hands.

On #205, I was taught that if a player bends his knees and goes pretty much straight down it's a flop!

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

What penalty? Did the contact affect the shot? If not, what penalty? If so, how?

I'm thinking about deleting one of my earlier posts just to throw off the message count of this thread so that everyone will be confused. :D

Heh, I wondered about that when I started referencing them that way. :D

Wrong--- white number 11 moves forward and his foot goes under the rebounder who lands on white 11's foot causing 11 to trip. If you have ever played basketball and while moving someone steps on your foot, it causes you to trip which is why 11 tripped. Why do you think the black rebounder turned his ankle? Do you think it is because he landed on the flat court or on 11s foot? Most ankle injuries in basketball happen while landing on a foot as in this case.

One point I would like to make. Considering the differences of opionions on what we believe actually happened and us seeing the play multiple times, the officials at the game made the best call. Give the ball to black and act like it was for the injury. I can see how it would be too tough to make the foul call in live action and yet you do not want to penalize the black team. Good call in my opionion.

He got hammered...So if I shoot the ball and the ball is gone but I am still airborne and I get drilled to the floor a foul shouldn't be called because it really didn't affect the shot?

Snags - I agree but.........
 

Great feedback on this play, however a play was missed. Either a foul or a travel. Personally I believe it was a travel

Been in that situation before and felt like a deer in head lights.

If I am the coach of the other team I am freakin furious.


And BTW, I have been blasted for taking an NBA approach in the past and now there are some people that are ok with applying the NBA rule in this circumstance becuase an injury occured.

Nope, "drilled to the floor" is much different than a guy getting slapped on the arm with no effect. If you want to argue there was some effect on the shot, I can live with that. Otherwise, what basis do you use to differentiate between incidental contact and a foul?

Your play is different (although some would argue that if your shot was blocked, you're all but fair game) than the video. An airborne shooter knocked to the floor certainly involves the disadvantage of not being able to participate in normal offensive movements.

In the video, what normal offensive movements were prevented?

He was injured before he traveled, if the official had noticed more quickly, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. I'm perfectly fine with letting it go with a late whistle for the injury and ignoring the travel.

What NBA rule are you talking about?

In the play in question the contact is not incidental, it is illegal contact and 90% of the people here would have called that a foul.

In the NBA that play is a no-call, the guy can fall to the ground and there is no penalty !!!!!!!!

Yes he may have been injured prior to the fall, butI still think (Per Rule)

a call needed to be made. Foul or travel....just my opinion

I'm not saying you're wrong, but why isn't it incidental? It certainly fits the definition of incidental contact. "Contact which does not prevent the opponent from participating in normal ... offensive movements" (paraphrased from memory.)

Yes, by rule, he traveled. By rule, a call should be made. I'm still not sure an assigner would want that call made due to the injury.

Warning Warning Warning !!!!!!!
 

Posting more than three times on the women's NCAA tourney thread and then attempting to come back here and post will have a stiff penalty.

It is possible that the stiff penalty will be enforced by Dee Kantner !!!!!!!!!

I was not suggesting taking the NBA approach for an NCAA game. I'm saying that if this happens in an NBA game, there is no onus on the officials to make a call.

In 1990 I ripped every ligament and a good amount of the nerves in my left ankle without stepping on my opponents foot so I have a good idea of how you can turn an ankle without stepping on someone's foot.

Now back to the play, I suggest you go to the 33 second mark of the video and pause it every second and tell me where Taylor's right foot is when the rebounder lands. Sh!t, in fact Taylor's left foot is in the air also. It's frickin' obvious, I can't believe you are actually saying the rebounder landed on Taylor's foot. :rolleyes:

I've become obsessed with the video in message #212 :o

Further scientific observation on my part. :D

The rebounder comes down on his toes first. Taylor right foot is in the air and the heel of the rebounders foot then contacts Taylor's foot causing Taylor to trip and the rebounder's left ankle to buckle forward instead of his heel coming naturally to the ground. It was a freak accident. No way in the world do I call a foul on Taylor as he did not come underneath the airborne rebounder.

Stop the clip at the 34 second mark. It clearly shows that he turned his ankle not by landing on the defender's foot but on the landing on the floor.

Another bonding moment for me and APG...LOL

M&M says JR wanted me to see if you two need a room of your own.

Coward.

I need for you to tell M&M to tell JR that APG said to shut up.

That's what I told him, too. He told me to just shut up and color.

ok

And try and stay between the f'ing lines this time too.

But JR can get you some great rates on rooms in Hackensack! :eek:

Billy, no pictures. I beg you.

His toe may have landed on the floor but #44's heel was clipped by #11's foot as he was coming down causing the twist. Without #11's slight contact, #44 doesn't turn the ankle at all.

It was contact and it did prevent #44 from performing normal offensive movement, but, I still say no foul. Foot-to-foot contact in the middle of the paint during rebounding action is just part of the game. Similar contact happens dozens of times per game without incident. Just bad luck this time.