Wisconsin / Kentucky
 

Block call at about 14:35 or so. Looked like an easy PC on replay.

Followed, of course, by a bit of idiocy from the announcers.

Also at 11:53 (first half) followed by a pretty overt display of anger from the defender.

Thought that was an easy PC call.

Review for potential FF1, 5:10 left in 1st half.

Dead ball contact technical foul called.

Did they give Wisconsin the ball table side?

was that administered correctly?

It appeared they did.

Peace

Yes. It is not a POI administration. Dead ball contact fouls are treated the same as a NF T.

Peace

thanks. so you can upgrade to a F1, F2, or Tech upon review?

You can always upgrade a foul for contact if it fits the definition of F1 or F2. But honestly, it does not matter unless you are going to eject the player for the contact. Dead ball contact plays really do not have a bigger penalty alone.

Two things are different.

1. Anyone can shoot the FTs.
2. Another T now disqualifies him.

You are right. I was only trying to reference what you call the foul. Any dead ball contact foul is a T. You could have called it based on FF1 or FF2, but they still would have been Ts.

Peace

1. Little known NCAA rule permits the team to inbound either table side or opposite table following a technical foul, which is not POI.
2. The very rare example of offensive GT just occurred, but was not called, at 16:35 of the 2nd half.
3. Crew was rather poor on block/charge decision in the first half. Two or three fouls called blocks which were PCs, imo.

Goaltending?
 

Close goaltending no-call at 16:36 in second half. Would love to get another look at it. Was on its downward flight, appeared to be above the ring, but not sure it had the possibility of entering the basket.

Someone please explain to me what Pat Adams is seeing on these blocking calls.

Wow, today's colour commentators are making Billy Packer look good.