Kentucky-Louisville Switcharoo

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by just another ref

NFHS If it is ruled an act of deception it is a technical foul.

NCAA rules only.....
Purely for the sake of argument, lets assume that UK#22 was the incorrect shooter.
Are NCAA correctable error rules the same as Fed? Would video review be allowed?

[SAJ]

It appears that when #L2 reaches between #K3 and #K22 to "deflect" the pass the official calls a foul on #L2 and must believe that foul was against #K22. With the position of both #K3 and #L2 with their backs facing the calling official he doesn't have the best look at the "foul".

I don't recall any other angles for replay on the play so I'm not sure who the foul was actually on.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by SAJ

It appears that when #L2 reaches between #K3 and #K22 to "deflect" the pass the official calls a foul on #L2 and must believe that foul was against #K22. With the position of both #K3 and #L2 with their backs facing the calling official he doesn't have the best look at the "foul".

I don't recall any other angles for replay on the play so I'm not sure who the foul was actually on.

IMO, it's pretty clear from the video that the foul on Smith was for wrapping Noel around the waste and turning him slightly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

IMO, it's pretty clear from the video that the foul on Smith was for wrapping Noel around the waste and turning him slightly.

How is that pretty clear? The foul looks like it was on the pass. Now whether Smith was reaching to defect the pass is an issue, but I would not say that second acton was a foul.

Peace

[just another ref]

I actually would have been happier with no foul called at all on the play.

But from the timing of the whistle and the reactions, it seems that the foul was on #2.

If so, the wrong shooter was on the line.

It happens, intentionally or otherwise.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How is that pretty clear? The foul looks like it was on the pass. Now whether Smith was reaching to defect the pass is an issue, but I would not say that second acton was a foul.

Peace

Right, and the action I pointed out I think prevents Noel from receiving the pass cleanly.

[SAJ]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

IMO, it's pretty clear from the video that the foul on Smith was for wrapping Noel around the waste and turning him slightly.

That's your opinion.

The calling official doesn't give a signal to indicate what type of foul was called. It could have been the wrap around the waste with the left hand, which would be against #K3, or it could have been the contact with the right hand. The right hand could have been determined to be on either #K22 or #K3. I don't think the official had a good look for that right hand contact by #L2.

[SAJ]

Not a big fan of the music in the video as I'm trying to determine if there were any whistles during the break in action to indicate the wrong shooter is at the line. There appears to be one around :20 when they cut away from the line and the players then switch positions. However, I'm not sure if that was just background music.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by SAJ

Not a big fan of the music in the video as I'm trying to determine if there were any whistles during the break in action to indicate the wrong shooter is at the line. There appears to be one around :20 when they cut away from the line and the players then switch positions. However, I'm not sure if that was just background music.

I think they were bringing in subs, as this was a 1 and 1 situation. Is that the whistle you're referring to?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

NCAA rules only.....
Purely for the sake of argument, lets assume that UK#22 was the incorrect shooter.
Are NCAA correctable error rules the same as Fed? Would video review be allowed?

Basically, yes. NCAA 2-12-1-c
1. It would have to be corrected during the first dead ball after the clock has been properly started.
2. Free throw activity, other than F's or T's, is cancelled.
3. Points scored, time consumed, and other activity after the FT(s) stands.
4. HC can "appeal" the game be stopped for a review of whether or not the CE is there.

Re: going to the monitor: Yes. This is a "may" go to the monitor situation per 2-13-2-a.

[JugglingReferee]

May go viral. It's on Yahoo!.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Basically, yes. NCAA 2-12-1-c
1. It would have to be corrected during the first dead ball after the clock has been properly started.
2. Free throw activity, other than F's or T's, is cancelled.
3. Points scored, time consumed, and other activity after the FT(s) stands.
4. HC can "appeal" the game be stopped for a review of whether or not the CE is there.

Re: going to the monitor: Yes. This is a "may" go to the monitor situation per 2-13-2-a.

Thanks for the info. and the NCAA rule references.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I posted the link verbatim from the website. If anyone thinks that by leaving the link as is, I am in any way agreeing with said link, then they are incredibly naive.

Incredibly??? I don't think so.

When people post links (here, facebook, blogs, whatever) it's almost one of two varieties... "Look at this crazy thing, can you believe this happened" - the poster agreeing with whatever the article said. or "Look at what this idiot is saying" - the poster disagreeing with the article.

You did neither. The fair assumption is that you agreed. Especially given that you argued in support of part of it in further posts.

Very rare is the "I have no opinion on this post, but I'm linking it anyway" If you think the reader should assume that you were posting but had no opinion... perhaps you are being incredibly naive.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Incredibly??? I don't think so.

When people post links (here, facebook, blogs, whatever) it's almost one of two varieties... "Look at this crazy thing, can you believe this happened" - the poster agreeing with whatever the article said. or "Look at what this idiot is saying" - the poster disagreeing with the article.

You did neither. The fair assumption is that you agreed. Especially given that you argued in support of part of it in further posts.

Very rare is the "I have no opinion on this post, but I'm linking it anyway" If you think the reader should assume that you were posting but had no opinion... perhaps you are being incredibly naive.

Jesus H. Christ.

By posting the link, all I wanted to do was get your opinions. I pointed out facts, without bias, that we can know to be true. I made my opinion based on the facts we know, both from the video and the box score. And I made my opinion known.

I've said in this thread that there's no way we can know if Calipari had anything to do with it.

Yes I did say I think some "funny business" went on. Based on the facts we know, that's my opinion. That's of course assuming the officials made a mistake in this situation and didn't get the correct shooter. But we all know what happens when you we assume.

By the way, the fair assumption would be to not assume anything about my opinion, but to ask what it is.

Kentucky says that they argued that Poythress should be the shooter, and the officials agreed. IF, if Kentucky was attempting to manipulate the officials, shame on them, and shame on the officials for allowing it to happen. I think we all know how important getting the shooter in a bonus situation is.

Videos get posted on here all the time asking for "thoughts". Block charge plays, etc. When someone argues their opinion, they ought to be treated fairly. Is that too much to ask?

[Camron Rust]

All I can tell from that video is that it was possible that either player was fouled. It is likely the calling official was calling the one that would have put #3 on the line but that isn't clear from the video. Given the quick whistle, it is not unreasonable that #22 and the UK staff thought he was the one that should be shooting. When there is ambiguity as to who should be shooting, that is on the officials to designate who the shooter should be.