Kentucky-Louisville Switcharoo
 

John Calipari Pulled a Switch-a-roo to Get a Better Shooter at the Foul Line, and the Refs Missed It [Video] | The Big Lead

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BNexVNX4y4o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thoughts?

Nope, don't believe that's what happened. Looks like #22 is fouled, not #3.

You mean there is not a play-by-play log to determine who the foul was on? I agree with BKref, I think the call was on the pass, not the guy who happened to have the ball when the whistle was blown.

And it looks like the officials told them to switch.

Peace

Look at the box score from the link in the article. #2 from Louisville (Russ Smith) only committed two fouls in the first half, and only one of those fouls was followed by free throws. As the box score points out, those foul shots were taken by Poythress (#22).

Now watch the video. Smith is nowhere near Poythress on the play. We know that this play happened in the first half because Kentucky is attacking towards the UL bench.

The other foul on Smith in the first half immediately preceded a TV timeout. Unless there's an incredibly delayed reaction, it doesn't look as though they're heading to a TV timeout after the foul in the video.

Click on the link, and there's a link there to the box score.

Also, where did you get the impression that the officials told them to switch?

OK dude, whatever you say. I really couldn't care less. You asked for thoughts, I gave them to you.

Where did you get the impression that Cal had anything to do with the switch? Cal is on the other end of the court and the players switch without anyone in the picture. I have been doing this long enough to know that I have told players who actually I called the foul on or my partners called the foul on and seen a similar switch. And unless we have the exact time of this foul, I think it is a stretch to put this on the coach. Officials often say who is supposed to go to the line. Players and teams assume a lot of stuff that is incorrect.

Peace

Did you at least read the article the second time around instead of just watching the video?

I never said anything about Calipari. The article did. The players could very well have pulled that off on their own.

All we have to go off of is the video and the box score. We know it's the first half, and if you notice the game clock in the background on the free throws, the clock says "1:something" which would be consistent with the box score.

In the video, it looks to me like the C called the foul and pointed at Smith.

And you didn't answer my question.

Well you posted a video that is accusing the coach. I am just saying I am not seeing anything that suggests this is on the coach. Maybe the officials sent the wrong guy to the line, that does happen you know. ;)

Also it is not clear he is pointing at Smith. It is clear he is pointing in the lane where at least two players are located. I am sure the official is saying who he called the foul on as well during his non-verbal action.

Peace

Agree with JRut. At some level there appears to have been a mix-up. Either UL #2 fouled UK #3 or UL #24 fouled UK #22 but the headline for the article is way off the mark and that's what causes the problem (to me, at least). Calipari is 50 feet away from the action. What could he have had to do with what went on?

I posted a link to an article (which I did not write) that contained a video (that I did not make). I'm just a messenger.

Yes, I know it happens. And maybe that's what happened here. Or maybe the players mixed up who was supposed to be at the line.

Speculating here, but hand signals, code words, any number of things. It sort of had the look of an orchestrated move.

That's grassy knoll-type speculation, if you ask me. It could be just as simple as UK #3 walked to the line because he happened to be holding the ball when the whistle blew.

True, but you made sure we knew that Cal was apart of the switch-a-roo in your link comments. I am just stating that I am not seeing how he is the main person responsible. I know officials sometimes lose the shooter on a foul not shooting. And it happens with me from time to time unless there is a very distinctive (tattoos, height, hair style) identifier for the kid that was fouled. I am not ruling out anything, just stating that there are a lot of factors to this situation.

Peace

hand signals and/or code words for switching shooters on foul shots, really? i suppose you are a birther and 9/11 truther as well! seriously, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things i have read on this forum!

A previous post asked how Calipari could have had anything to do with it.

I answered his question. There's no evidence in the video to suggest that Calipari had anything to do with it, and I'm not making things up. I said I was speculating, though maybe that was a poor choice of words.

I'm not suggesting officials need to be on the lookout for such things. They have enough to worry about in games like that.

If this is the most ridiculous thing you've read on the forum, you haven't been around for very long.

Jeff, come on. Quote me where I accuse Calipari of having anything to do with this!

Anytime you post a link, there is a place where you have the opportunity put the nature of the video or link in your own words.

This is the part that I am taking issue with[Video] | The Big Lead

Or the link would look like this.

It does not make me any difference, I am just stating you posted this video. I think there are holes in the way the situation is being made out to be that is all. And I am not one not to put much beyond a coach either.

Peace

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.

If I must edit the link of everything I post in order to be PC, then so be it. But don't put words in my mouth because I copied and pasted a link directly from another website.

Don't take what I said so personally. I am just stating you posted the link and the video. I am giving you my perspective on the situation just like others did. It does not mean that what people see is right or wrong. It just means there are other explanations. But you cannot get upset with anyone when they do not see what you see. Again, this looks like a typical situation where the wrong player thinks they are shooting and we tell them that the right player should go to the line. It has happen several times over the years with me personally and I would not suspect anything different took place here with a coach that is on the other side of the court.

Peace

I had PVR'd the game and went back to watch. On the broadcast, you can see referee Ed Corbett signaling the foul on #2 when reporting to the table. That part is clear.

As to whether Calipari had anything to do with it, I have no idea. I do know that a friend of mine played for a coach who encouraged his players to try and get away with that stuff. My friend did not play for Coach Cal though.:)

Your perspective is what I want. Not baseless accusations. It looks to me like some funny business happened. You don't agree? That's OK with me.

Well there's another piece to the puzzle. So Noel should have been at the line for sure, and not Poythress.

Either the officials screwed up by directing Poythress to the line, or Kentucky pulled a trick and got away with it.

That is what I gave you. You just did not accept it. And that is OK with me. ;)

Peace

I never told you that you are wrong, I argued back and forth with you.

I did not say I was right. I just do not see anything that suggests something nefarious took place on the coach's part. Who knows what the coach tells these guys behind closed doors. I just see nothing in the video and it appears I am seeing what others are seeing. And you are a IU fan and alum, so that tells me a lot of why you might think Coach Cal was up to something. ;)

Peace

Haha while my Hoosier fandom is no secret, rest assured it's not blinding.

The perception of Calipari is that he cheats OFF the court, not on it.

Ah, no. Like I said, I couldn't care less what the guy who wrote the article thinks. I simply looked at the video.

No doubt in my mind there was confusion on who was fouled.

Since I don't officiate basketball, I have a couple questions. What is the penalty for switching shooters? Is the penalty the same for NCAA and Fed?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

May go viral. It's on Yahoo!.

Thanks for the info. and the NCAA rule references.

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?

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.

This situation happening is the officials fault. They have to get the shooter. Yes, Kentucky tried to get the other guy on the line. However the officials need to get the right guy.

Yahoo article..
It's possible Poythress took the foul shots because he thought he drew a blocking foul on Montrezl Harrell as he drove baseline before dishing to Noel, but the majority of the evidence suggests that wasn't the call that was made. The referee who blew his whistle did so after Smith's foul and pointed directly at Smith. Plus, the play-by-play in the box score attributes the foul to Smith.

Kentucky reply....
"Our bench argued that Poythress was the shooter & the official notified the official scorer that #22 was the shooter," Kentucky executive associate athletic director for external operations DeWayne Peevy tweeted. "After seeing the tape, it might have been the wrong call but it wasn't a switch-a-roo. It was confirmed to the official scorer."

The official called a foul, which by the way, didn't look like much of a foul, then none of the 3 knew who the shooter was.

I really don't know how you could think that it wasn't #3 that was fouled in the video.

It's fairly obvious that they switched on their own and the officials didn't catch it or they identified the wrong shooter in the first place. These guys are good but they aren't infallible.

Really? I thought it was equally possible, from as much as could be seen in that video, that #22 was fouled. It is quite likely that #22 thought he was the one that was fouled. It looked more obvious to me that there would be a foul there than with #3. I know there are many times when I've called a foul where the I had the choice of more than one fouler and, not infrequently, the choice of foulees.

Blasphemy. That's impressive.

Not everyone believes in Him.

Sorry I could not resist. ;)

Peace