Clips: Gonzaga v. BYU

[Toren]

Originally Posted by youngump

You should probably also get the delay of game whistle and no call at about 17:30 left in the second half. It'll generate more interesting discussion.

I think John Adams confused the staff, they had issued Gonzaga a delay of game warning for crossing the boundary plane during inbound earlier in the game. Then they issue another "warning" for grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref.

I still believe that should have been a technical, but because of that point of discussion (emphasis) by Adams, I believe they thought they needed an official warning for that particular act (grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref).

My two cents.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Toren

I think John Adams confused the staff, they had issued Gonzaga a delay of game warning for crossing the boundary plane during inbound earlier in the game. Then they issue another "warning" for grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref.

I still believe that should have been a technical, but because of that point of discussion (emphasis) by Adams, I believe they thought they needed an official warning for that particular act (grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref).

My two cents.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

The last time that I looked up this particular rule there was a difference between NCAA and NFHS.
About four years ago the NFHS added a warning for water on the court following a TO or intermission and also changed its rule such that one warning was issued for any of the four delay situations and the next infraction resulted in a team technical foul. The NCAA rule remains that the team gets a warning for each specific kind of delay and one warning doesn't apply to the other situations. The team must indeed commit the same delay infraction a second time in order to earn a T.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The last time that I looked up this particular rule there was a difference between NCAA and NFHS.
About four years ago the NFHS added a warning for water on the court following a TO or intermission and also changed its rule such that one warning was issued for any of the four delay situations and the next infraction resulted in a team technical foul. The NCAA rule remains that the team gets a warning for each specific kind of delay and one warning doesn't apply to the other situations. The team must indeed commit the same delay infraction a second time in order to earn a T.

Thanks for the clarification.

[canuckrefguy]

Pretty thin D.O.G. - not sure it's worthy of stopping the game.

As for the FF1 - are you kidding?

The shooter does nothing except make a legitimate drive to the basket.

All contact is created by Kaufusi with an aggressive forward motion, with his arms piked, and no intention whatsoever on making a basketball play. To boot - there IS head contact because Kaufusi's piked arm is the first piece of his body that comes into contact with Olynyk's head. Observe:







Olynyk is completely vertical at the moment of contact. Kaufusi shifted into him aggressively, traveling about three feet horizontally in the process. Then he basically makes a body-slam movement with both arms. This is not a basketball play.

While the post-contact taunting is not grounds technically for a FF, it is certainly common-sense evidence that the defender's actions were not routine.

Bottom line - I can't believe an observer in the stands with a clipboard would criticize the official on the play for calling a "softie" flagrant 1 foul.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

To boot - there IS head contact because Kaufusi's piked arm is the first piece of his body that comes into contact with Olynyk's head.

You might be confusing "contact to the thead" with the relativley new "moving elbow contact to the head" rule.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

Pretty thin D.O.G. - not sure it's worthy of stopping the game.

As for the FF1 - are you kidding?

The shooter does nothing except make a legitimate drive to the basket.

All contact is created by Kaufusi with an aggressive forward motion, with his arms piked, and no intention whatsoever on making a basketball play. To boot - there IS head contact because Kaufusi's piked arm is the first piece of his body that comes into contact with Olynyk's head. Observe:







Olynyk is completely vertical at the moment of contact. Kaufusi shifted into him aggressively, traveling about three feet horizontally in the process. Then he basically makes a body-slam movement with both arms. This is not a basketball play.

While the post-contact taunting is not grounds technically for a FF, it is certainly common-sense evidence that the defender's actions were not routine.

Bottom line - I can't believe an observer in the stands with a clipboard would criticize the official on the play for calling a "softie" flagrant 1 foul.

Shoot the normal guy who evaluates these games was not there Saturday or I would have some good stuff right from the evaluators mouth. Sorry guys.. I will see who subbed for him and see what he says.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by BigT

Shoot the normal guy who evaluates these games was not there Saturday or I would have some good stuff right from the evaluators mouth. Sorry guys.. I will see who subbed for him and see what he says.

Considering that Dave Libbey (the WCC Supervisor) was present at the game, and said it was a F1, it is the only evaluation of the play the crew needed to hear.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by agr8zebra

So we are saying a team would have to get for a warning for: A) Huddling in the key, B)reaching through the plane and C)interfering with the ball after a made basket. Then if they committed the same type of act, A, B or C they would then be assessed a technical? Thus we would be issuing 3 separate warnings.

I only do HS, under NFHS, which I feel one warning would suffice for all 3 acts and a subsequent occurrence would result in a T Foul. Right?

Your missing a 4th, "water on the court after a time-out".

And yes, they are all separate for NCAA.

[agr8zebra]

As I only do HS, and reading through the post I gathered that NFHS added the "Court Ready" DOG and the NCAA didn't. But if you say Court being Game Ready in NCAA, I should have added it as the 4th. They each get warnings?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Toren

I think John Adams confused the staff, they had issued Gonzaga a delay of game warning for crossing the boundary plane during inbound earlier in the game. Then they issue another "warning" for grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref.

I still believe that should have been a technical, but because of that point of discussion (emphasis) by Adams, I believe they thought they needed an official warning for that particular act (grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref).

My two cents.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

John Adams commented on this game tonight (Thursday) already?

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

John Adams commented on this game tonight (Thursday) already?

Peace

He issued a bulletin about scoring teams grabbing the ball out of the net and throwing it to an official. It was a rather wordy bulletin that also incorrectly identified the type of penalty. He sent out a correction the same day.