UCONN Coach Ejected--Video Request

[stiffler3492]

UCONN Coach ejected at about the 13:00 mark of the 2nd half of the UCONN vs UL game tonight. Can someone post video of the play that led to the ejection?

[Raymond]

#1) That's a foul;
#2) Kevin Ollie earned the first T, no question.
#3) After first T, Ollie throws an F-bomb at Stuart, so 2nd T earned.
#4) Dickie V, sounds like an idiot. I hate the phrase "fighting for his player", it's code for "acting a$$ when a ref misses a call"

[Camron Rust]

Agree. We all miss them. I missed a couple last night that I know were probably obvious form a different view but sometimes you just get caught in the wrong spot. And that looks to be the case here.

[Rob1968]

It appears that the defender would have missed the ball-handler if the ball-handler hadn't purposely moved to his right to draw the contact and, that sideways movement was not part of a normal attempt to shoot.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

It appears that the defender would have missed the ball-handler if the ball-handler hadn't purposely moved to his right to draw the contact and, that sideways movement was not part of a normal attempt to shoot.

This is a foul 999/1000 times...and the one time is cause the officials missed the call.

[JRutledge]

I think it is a valid point that when players throw themselves into other players, you lose the benefit of the doubt in many cases. I agree this is a foul, but it would have made me think of it when the offensive player throws himself into the defender.

That also being said, he was yelling at the wrong official. The official that would have had this call was the T, not the L. I would not be surprised if the L was not even looking there. So mistake number 1 was Ollie is yelling at the wrong guy. I probably would not have called anything either from his position on this play. Not when the shooter throws himself into the guy and that is where most of the contact came from.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

It appears that the defender would have missed the ball-handler if the ball-handler hadn't purposely moved to his right to draw the contact and, that sideways movement was not part of a normal attempt to shoot.

Not sure how this matters according to the rule. The defenders till has certain obligations regardless of which direction the offensive player moves. If the offensive player is trying to draw contact, it's up to the defender to either avoid the contact or ensure such contact is legal (from the defensive perspective.)

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not sure how this matters according to the rule. The defenders till has certain obligations regardless of which direction the offensive player moves. If the offensive player is trying to draw contact, it's up to the defender to either avoid the contact or ensure such contact is legal (from the defensive perspective.)

I agree. Now, to the case in point:

The dribble and movement to his right, by the ball-handler, was after the leap by the defender. It was not an attempt to go towards the basket, to get the shot off. With the defender already in the air, he couldn't change his direction to avoid the ball-handler, because the ball-handler moved into him. Even so, it is obvious in the video that the defender, while in the air, tried to miss the ball-handler.
The observation by several forum members, that it shouldn't be a foul "in the act of shooting" demonstrates that the two actions - moving towards the airbourne defender to cause the contact, and then trying to get the shot off, were not simultaneous.

As of last season, the NBA recognized that such attempts to "draw the foul" needed to be judged differently.

Several years ago, I called a player control foul on a ball-handler, when he moved under a defender who had jumped, completely taking away his opportunity to land, and dumping him, hard to the floor. The objections to the call were somewhat overcome, when the defender was carried off the floor, due to the injury he suffered.

Obviously, the video in discussion has not that amount of contact, and, I, also, most likely, in that situation would have called a foul on the defender.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

#1) That's a foul;

#4) Dickie V, sounds like an idiot. I hate the phrase "fighting for his player", it's code for "acting a$$ when a ref misses a call"

1) Foul, but I'm not sure it was a shooting foul. I think white was still dribbling.

4) On the rare occasion when I have time to watch, if Dickie V is doing the game, I watch something else.

[JugglingReferee]

Definitely a foul.

Definitely not a shooting foul.

Definitely a T in HS, even if a foul was called. I gotta think the same is true in NCAA. I know in FIBA it would be.

Definitely a 2nd T. Times like this I think about something called a "continuing action T foul". He dissatisfaction is all in one action. I would support a rule change where the 1st T is upgraded to a flagrant for the continued harassment.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I would support a rule change where the 1st T is upgraded to a flagrant for the continued harassment.

Frankly, I prefer the option we have, where the continued harassment gets a second technical foul and the accompanying free throws.

I also find it pathetic that a D-1 coach has to be restrained by his 20-ish year old players.

[OKREF]

I think he only got one T on that play. I believe he had gotten a T earlier in the game. At least that's the way I heard it on ESPN.