2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CLH

If thats your call, go with it my man Beware of calls that commentators agree with! lol

What do commentators have to do with it? I watched the play on YouTube with no sound.

I did notice a few officials agreed with the call. Should I beware of that also?

[CLH]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What do commentators have to do with it? I watched the play on YouTube with no sound.

I did notice a few officials agreed with the call. Should I beware of that also?

ya know what, you're completely right man, how dare me try to make a joke of such a serious moment...shame, shame on me I tell ya!

[Andy]

It appears to me that he went up in the air to make the pass, then collided with the defender. The contact had the result of freeing the shooter for an open shot. When he left the ground, his "intent" was not to throw his body into the defender, but that is what ended up happening.

FWIW, my final judgement would lean to a no-call, incidental contact. I don't consider what the offensive player was doing a screen, and the contact created by the defender did not disadvantage the offensiver player from passing the ball.

Of course, this is after having the luxury of watching it a few times in replay. I did not see the play live as I was watching the Ariz/Duke game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Andy

It appears to me that he went up in the air to make the pass, then collided with the defender. The contact had the result of freeing the shooter for an open shot. When he left the ground, his "intent" was not to throw his body into the defender, but that is what ended up happening.

FWIW, my final judgement would lean to a no-call, incidental contact. I don't consider what the offensive player was doing a screen, and the contact created by the defender did not disadvantage the offensiver player from passing the ball.

Of course, this is after having the luxury of watching it a few times in replay. I did not see the play live as I was watching the Ariz/Duke game.

Whether you consider it a screen isn't relevant. That's what it was. Even if it wasn't his intent, the result was an illegally screened defender.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CLH

ya know what, you're completely right man, how dare me try to make a joke of such a serious moment...shame, shame on me I tell ya!

It's only funny if the audience has a clue what you're talking about.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's only funny if the audience has a clue what you're talking about.

I "got it" and thought it was funny.

[rulesmaven]

Lots of chatter on the internet about a technical foul called early in the second half in the SDSU/UConn game for a bump during a time out. Link at the bottom with a video; I don't know how to imbed.

On a more extended replay, they showed the entire play. SDSU scores a basket. Connecticut calls a TO. One of the SDSU players comes over to woof at Connecticut's walker -- getting into his face. He then backs off, but then on the way to the bench lowers the shoulder and gives him a bump. During the commercial, the crew apparently went to the monitor (as reported by the announcers -- you didn't see it on tv). They called a T.

I think seeing the whole play in context it's an easy T. But I also think there's clearly some embellishment on the part of the Connecticut player.

Is Kemba Walker a flopper or just a great player? - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

[Adam]

Yep, he embellished, which may have served to draw the officials' attention and take them to the monitor. Even without the flop, it's at least a borderline T and therefore a stupid move.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Lots of chatter on the internet about a technical foul called early in the second half in the SDSU/UConn game for a bump during a time out. Link at the bottom with a video; I don't know how to imbed.

On a more extended replay, they showed the entire play. SDSU scores a basket. Connecticut calls a TO. One of the SDSU players comes over to woof at Connecticut's walker -- getting into his face. He then backs off, but then on the way to the bench lowers the shoulder and gives him a bump. During the commercial, the crew apparently went to the monitor (as reported by the announcers -- you didn't see it on tv). They called a T.

I think seeing the whole play in context it's an easy T. But I also think there's clearly some embellishment on the part of the Connecticut player.

Is Kemba Walker a flopper or just a great player? - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

Haven't looked at the YouTube video but on the replays last night you can see an official (O'Neil?) right on the spot after it happened and he was pointing at the perpetrator.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Haven't looked at the YouTube video but on the replays last night you can see an official (O'Neil?) right on the spot after it happened and he was pointing at the perpetrator.

Easy T call. Why the need to use a monitor?

And how about those vote option after the link? "Total Flop" or a "Mugging". How about in the middle of the road?

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Easy T call. Why the need to use a monitor?

Good question. To see if there was an elbow maybe?

FWIW, there was a T called earlier in the game for taunting behavior, so my guess is there were plenty of warnings on the floor.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

Good question. To see if there was an elbow maybe?

FWIW, there was a T called earlier in the game for taunting behavior, so my guess is there were plenty of warnings on the floor.

Gotcha. Thanks for that. So then perhaps they were thinking that with an elbow or something, the foul would go beyond a T?

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Gotcha. Thanks for that. So then perhaps they were thinking that with an elbow or something, the foul would go beyond a T?

Right. If I heard the public address announcer correctly, the call was for unnecessary contact during a stoppage. (10.5.1(d).) I assume they want to the monitor to see whether it was flagrant (10.5.1(e)), which has a different penalty administration.