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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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.