The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   NCAA Women UCONN V. DUKE (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/7287-ncaa-women-uconn-v-duke.html)

williebfree Sat Feb 01, 2003 11:13pm

14:16 remaining in 2nd half

UCONN player (Name escapes me) attempts shot block, pushes the elbow on the way to the ball, slaps the ball with hand and her forearm smacks the forearm of the shooter.

Male announcer: (UCONN player) is called on a questionable foul.

(Slow-mo replay starts and CLEARLY shows the foul)

Ann Meyer: Yes, three officials on the floor and only one whistled the foul.


Another example of clueless announcers.

mplagrow Sat Feb 01, 2003 11:16pm

Yeah, right. . . .
 
It was also probably 'over-the-back' and 'reaching in' all rolled into one!

Hawks Coach Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:14am

I have to agree with that one. I think it was outside the calling official's primary, but it was a clear foul and needed to be called.

It was strange, because Meyer commented on how she got the arm, then proceeded to question why only one official called it. I guess with three, you need a majority?

rainmaker Sun Feb 02, 2003 04:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I guess with three, you need a majority?
Unless it's a Quaker school, and then they use consensus!

DrakeM Sun Feb 02, 2003 04:39pm

Wesley Dean made the call from "C".
Lisa Mattingly at Lead and Sally Bell at trail.
I think the call came from the right place.
And replay backed him up.
Contact occured on the side away from lead, Lisa would have been guessing.

bigwhistle Sun Feb 02, 2003 05:42pm

POI after T
 
My only question for the part of the game that I saw was when the T was called on UCONN for an elbow in retaliation for a Duke girl fouling her....why did they use the POI for this? This would be a dead ball intentional contact T, which does not follow POI.

Am I wrong with this question?

Bart Tyson Sun Feb 02, 2003 06:34pm

sounds like the official did not call intentional T. Just called a dead ball foul, which is a T. So, since it is just a T, we have a false double invouling a T. We shoot the T and go to POI.

bigwhistle Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:43pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
sounds like the official did not call intentional T. Just called a dead ball foul, which is a T. So, since it is just a T, we have a false double invouling a T. We shoot the T and go to POI.
A dead ball contact T is by definition an intentional T

williebfree Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:56pm

The T was called on UCONN head coach
 
Geno Auriemma was called for a technical after arguing a foul call against Taurasi.

THERE WERE NO PLAYER T's.

bigwhistle Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:29pm

Re: The T was called on UCONN head coach
 
Quote:

Originally posted by williebfree
Geno Auriemma was called for a technical after arguing a foul call against Taurasi.

THERE WERE NO PLAYER T's.

Hmmmm....then why did the box score list 2 technical fouls...one of which was against a player?

williebfree Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:54pm

Re: Re: The T was called on UCONN head coach
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bigwhistle
Quote:

Originally posted by williebfree
Geno Auriemma was called for a technical after arguing a foul call against Taurasi.

THERE WERE NO PLAYER T's.

Hmmmm....then why did the box score list 2 technical fouls...one of which was against a player?

I guess it depends where you look... Notice that ESPN.com list NO Techs were issued in their box score and then in the recap comment about the Auriemma T. ????

Box score
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/boxscore?gameId=230320150

ChuckElias Mon Feb 03, 2003 08:43am

Re: POI after T
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bigwhistle
My only question for the part of the game that I saw was when the T was called on UCONN for an elbow in retaliation for a Duke girl fouling her....why did they use the POI for this? This would be a dead ball intentional contact T, which does not follow POI.
You're correct, biggie. A few of us discussed this at length at our association meeting yesterday morning. I didn't see the game, so I don't know if the T was on the player or the coach. But if the T was for the elbow after the play was dead (which is what it sounds like to me), then they should have shot the personal FTs first, then the FTs for the intentional T (dead ball contact), then given the ball at midcourt to the team that shot the technical FTs. I hope the crew was not from the Big East -- again. . .

Chuck

secondyear Mon Feb 03, 2003 08:57am

willie - there were two technical fouls on was on a player , and another on Geno.

I agree with Bart, it appears that the official who called the technical on the player called it a direct and they went with the POI, which would be the correct procedure.

mick Mon Feb 03, 2003 09:20am

Re: Re: POI after T
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
You're correct, biggie. A few of us discussed this at length at our association meeting yesterday morning. I didn't see the game, so I don't know if the T was on the player or the coach. But if the T was for the elbow after the play was dead (which is what it sounds like to me), then they should have shot the personal FTs first, then the FTs for the intentional T (dead ball contact), <u>then given the ball at midcourt to the team that shot the technical FTs.</u> I hope the crew was not from the Big East -- again. . .

Chuck

Rule 10-14.6: After an intentional technical foul, the ball will be returned to play at the closest spot, rather than half court. Rationale: With this change, the ball will now be returned to play from the closest spot to the foul after all technical fouls. It is more consistent.

Chuck,
Is going to midcourt something new, or was that last year?
mick


ChuckElias Mon Feb 03, 2003 09:39am

Re: Re: Re: POI after T
 
Quote:

Originally posted by mick
Rule 10-14.6: After an intentional technical foul, the ball will be returned to play at the closest spot, rather than half court. Rationale: With this change, the ball will now be returned to play from the closest spot to the foul after all technical fouls. It is more consistent.

Chuck,
Is going to midcourt something new, or was that last year?

Darn punk, smart-aleck, kids. Make me go and actually read my rulebook. . . if I can find it. . . Ok, here it is. Blow the dust off it. . .

To be serious, mick, you must have kind of an old rule book. I even looked in last year's NCAA book, and the rule was the same last year as what I mentioned earlier. Intentional technical fouls (which are, by rule, dead ball non-flagrant contact fouls) are penalized by two FTs and possession at midcourt. The reference in the 2003 NCAA book is 10-14-1.

My confusion stems from the fact that the women still use the spot closest to where the foul occured for intentional T's. So in the game we're discussing, the officials were correct NOT to put the ball in at midcourt; however, they still should have given possession after the technical FTs to the team that was on the receiving end of the elbow.

Chuck


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1