Missouri vs. UCLA

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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

Let's just say he didn't make the most legitimate attempt to play the ball that he could have. The swan dive by Pressey aside, I can't recall seeing an F1 called on a play like that in an NCAA game, men or women. An intentional in a HS game is another story.

[Lotto]

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?

Yes, he would get the T.

Note that the coach may only request a monitor review to determine if there was an F2 personal or contact technical foul in NCAAM. In NCAAW, they can also request for an F1 personal or contact dead ball technical involving contact with an elbow above the shoulders. If the coach makes such a request, then the officials could decide that the foul was an F1 but not an F2. in this case, a timeout would still be charged since there was no F2 foul.

Here's the relevant portion of the rulebook:
Rule 2-13.2. Officials may use such available equipment only in the following situations:
d. Fouls.
1. Determine if a flagrant 2 personal foul, flagrant 2 contact technical foul or (women) flagrant 1 personal foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent or a (women) contact dead ball technical foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent occurred. When it is determined that a flagrant 2 contact technical foul did not occur but a flagrant 1 personal foul, or contact dead ball technical foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.
b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team.

[Camron Rust]

I do not have an intentional/F1...close but not quite.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I do not have an intentional/F1...close but not quite.

What's keeping you from going over the edge?

[maven]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

What's keeping you from going over the edge?

Was the contact excessive or the result?

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by maven

Was the contact excessive or the result?

I think the more pertinent question about this play is did the player make a legitimate enough attempt to play the ball?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I think the more pertinent question about this play is did the player make a legitimate enough attempt to play the ball?

I agree with this as I dont believe the contact was excessive.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I think the more pertinent question about this play is did the player make a legitimate enough attempt to play the ball?

I think yes. I think he reached for where he expected to the ball to be but the dribbler shifted it away from him. If you look at the view from the lead's position you can see the hand of the defender reaching beyond the body of the dribbler towards the ball. He didn't get it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to get the ball.

Additionally, I look to see if the contact I see could cause the result that I see. I don't think it did. I think the dribbler embellished.

[JugglingReferee]

Just a common foul, due to the embellishment.

With a possible travel before the dribble begins.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think yes. I think he reached for where he expected to the ball to be but the dribbler shifted it away from him. If you look at the view from the lead's position you can see the hand of the defender reaching beyond the body of the dribbler towards the ball. He didn't get it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to get the ball.

Additionally, I look to see if the contact I see could cause the result that I see. I don't think it did. I think the dribbler embellished.

I think that's about as thorough an explanation as we'll see. I see what you're saying, but I think he grabs Pressey around the waist with the same hand he reaches for the ball with, in addition to wrapping his hand around the backside too.

[jeremy341a]

To those that say common foul due to embelishment, are you saying it would have been flgrant if not for the embellishment or are you saying it is common all the way and the embelishment makes it appear to be possibly flagrant?

[ballgame99]

For some context, UCLA had 2 fouls with like 10 seconds to go. They intentionally fouled 3 times in about 4 seconds. This was their 4th foul in 5 seconds and their 6th team foul. So the fact that they were strategically intentionally fouling made this one look much worse. The ballhandler had a clear path to the basket on a last second type play and was grabbed by the waist by a defender that was out of position, this looks like an intentional (flagrant 1) to me. The ballhandler definitely embellished a bit, but I don't see how that makes any difference in this being a flagrant 1 or not.

[JRutledge]

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.

I agree. I am not seeing anything in the contact that would have pulled that guy like a rag doll. And his reaction afterwards suggests there was some funny business.

Maybe I just saw too much acting this weekend to trust what players do a lot of the time.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

for some context, ucla had 2 fouls with like 10 seconds to go. They intentionally fouled 3 times in about 4 seconds. This was their 4th foul in 5 seconds and their 6th team foul. So the fact that they were strategically intentionally fouling made this one look much worse. The ballhandler had a clear path to the basket on a last second type play and was grabbed by the waist by a defender that was out of position, this looks like an intentional (flagrant 1) to me. The ballhandler definitely embellished a bit, but i don't see how that makes any difference in this being a flagrant 1 or not.

+1

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

The ballhandler had a clear path to the basket on a last second type play and was grabbed by the waist by a defender that was out of position, this looks like an intentional (flagrant 1) to me. The ballhandler definitely embellished a bit, but I don't see how that makes any difference in this being a flagrant 1 or not.

Clear path? Really? There were two more defenders between the point of the foul and the basket that could have easily cut him off and he only got by the 3rd defender as the foul was occurring.