Missouri vs. UCLA

[jeremy341a]

with about 5 sec left UCLA gave a foul to stop the clock. Does anyone have a clip of that play? For those of you that saw it, do you think it was flagrant? Would you have called it intentional in your high school game?

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

with about 5 sec left UCLA gave a foul to stop the clock. Does anyone have a clip of that play? For those of you that saw it, do you think it was flagrant? Would you have called it intentional in your high school game?

You could make a case, albeit a weak case, that the fouler was making a play on the ball. At full speed, I think I'd probably call that intentional.

[JetMetFan]

I don't have a problem with no F1 call on the play, mainly because of the embellishment by the Missouri player.

That being said, of the four fouls UCLA gave in that sequence I think this one was the closest to an F1.

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I don't have a problem with no F1 call on the play, mainly because of the embellishment by the Missouri player.

That being said, of the four fouls UCLA gave in that sequence I think this one was the closest to an F1.

I think you are dead on..I was at the game and what a I saw was like an NBA type move where the defender contributed by hooking onto the defender making it look worse than the contact was.

The PAC 12 wants to meet with you

[The_Rookie]

NCAA Question related to this play...

Mizzou coach had no timeouts..if he requests the crew to look at monitor and the foul is NOT upgraded to Flagrant 1...would he be charged a timeout and since he has NONE..would a T be assessed for excessive TO?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Would you have called it intentional in your high school game?

Intentional. Either a "regular" intentional, or a "hard foul" intentional. I may give some thought to a flagrant, but would probably not make that call.

[tomegun]

I think it is a Flagrant Foul 1 or intentional in high school. I watched it as it happened from my hotel room and thought FF1 from the start.

For some reason the volume on the channel wasn't working and I couldn't hear how many fouls UCLA had. I can understand fouling once the team gets into their offense, but it looked like UCLA was fouling too early - as soon as the ball was in bounds in the backcourt.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I think it is a Flagrant Foul 1 or intentional in high school. I watched it as it happened from my hotel room and thought FF1 from the start.

For some reason the volume on the channel wasn't working and I couldn't hear how many fouls UCLA had. I can understand fouling once the team gets into their offense, but it looked like UCLA was fouling too early - as soon as the ball was in bounds in the backcourt.

From a strategy stand point I think they wanted to foul to run time off the clock, and ideally make Mizzou go the length of the floor in as little time as possible. Obviously Mizzou got into the frontcourt, and then the controversy happened.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by tomegun

For some reason the volume on the channel wasn't working and I couldn't hear how many fouls UCLA had. I can understand fouling once the team gets into their offense, but it looked like UCLA was fouling too early - as soon as the ball was in bounds in the backcourt.

I thought the same thing. UCLA had 2 fouls with about 10 seconds left. If your goal is to get to OT, why not just commit one foul - or at the most two - once the ball is in the frontcourt? That way if the game goes to OT you still have fouls to give.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Intentional. Either a "regular" intentional, or a "hard foul" intentional. I may give some thought to a flagrant, but would probably not make that call.

If you're going to call intentional this didn't fall into the hard foul category. Even at regular speed it didn't look like the UCLA player put a lot of muscle into his move.

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

NCAA Question related to this play...

Mizzou coach had no timeouts..if he requests the crew to look at monitor and the foul is NOT upgraded to Flagrant 1...would he be charged a timeout and since he has NONE..would a T be assessed for excessive TO?

Actually, Missouri did have a time out remaining but...if he asked for a review and was out of time outs and it was determined an F1, F2 or F2 contact hadn't been commited then yes, Missouri would be charged a time out and pick up an administrative tech for its troubles.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I don't have a problem with no F1 call on the play, mainly because of the embellishment by the Missouri player.

That being said, of the four fouls UCLA gave in that sequence I think this one was the closest to an F1.

I agree with this.

Pressey, who had one Hell of a game btw (19 pts 19 asst), jumps and spins as he's grabbed. This creates the impression that the contact was more severe than it actually was.

[maven]

Unless that defender knows some serious, mysterious judo, there's no way from how he contacted a balanced dribbler that he could have produced that outcome without some assistance from the dribbler. On an airborne shooter, maybe.

Nice acting job.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by maven

Unless that defender knows some serious, mysterious judo, there's no way from how he contacted a balanced dribbler that he could have produced that outcome without some assistance from the dribbler. On an airborne shooter, maybe.

Nice acting job.

Disagree. The two players' momentums were going two different directions, and it looked as though the defender held on just a touch too long, and that was what spun Pressey. I'm no physicist, just my opinion.

[pat12]

the defender did rip pressey hard but it looked like pressey spun and made it look worse

[OKREF]

Looks to me like Pressey is trying to get a shot off as the foul happened. I think that makes it look worse as the two players are going different directions.

[jeremy341a]

Do you guys feel that the UCLA player made a legitimate attempt to play the ball?