Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Can someone please post the video of the following play as described on ESPN.com:


Trice answered with a 3-pointer with 1:20 remaining before Nunn scored on a drive to make it 55-52. But when Trice was hit by Tate after making the front end of a one-and-one, Michigan State got three more foul shots with 33 seconds left and made just one of them.

"The ball went through the hoop, and the ball became dead," referee Terry Wymer said. "No. 1 (Tate) backed into him in an unnecessary manner and made contact with him at that point. That's why we called a dead-ball contact technical foul."

[Illini_Ref]

As an Illinois fan, I was watching the game. IN NO WAY was that a dead ball technical. The Illinois defender on the lane that was responsible for the shooter put his butt into the shooter after the first shot of the 1 and 1. It was not severe contact, or unnecessary IMO. The shooter took it to the jewels and reacted as such. I really don't see this being called during normal play EVER. At most, it should have been a common foul as it did not happen AFTER the ball went through. As soon as the FT was released, the shooter was boxed out. Just my opinion, but maybe I was watching with my heart more than my eyes. ;-)

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

As an Illinois fan, I was watching the game. IN NO WAY was that a dead ball technical. The Illinois defender on the lane that was responsible for the shooter put his butt into the shooter after the first shot of the 1 and 1. It was not severe contact, or unnecessary IMO. The shooter took it to the jewels and reacted as such. I really don't see this being called during normal play EVER. At most, it should have been a common foul as it did not happen AFTER the ball went through. As soon as the FT was released, the shooter was boxed out. Just my opinion, but maybe I was watching with my heart more than my eyes. ;-)

Apart from all that -- it wasn't a T because the contact was made while the ball was live.

Sorry I couldn't embed the video but I'm at work right now.

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12292877

APG embed

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

"The ball went through the hoop, and the ball became dead," referee Terry Wymer said. "No. 1 (Tate) backed into him in an unnecessary manner and made contact with him at that point. That's why we called a dead-ball contact technical foul."

Let's just say the video shows otherwise.

[Bad Zebra]

This seems like a pretty good example of why the NFHS might want to address contacting the shooter/crossing the FT line that's being discussed in the IAABO/NFHS thread. The new NFHS rule on entering the lane on release has definitely increased the potential of this exact scenario occurring at the HS level.

As I expected, things got more physical during FT's this year.

[SC Official]

Contact was before the ball went through the basket.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

So, which official came in with the T? I don't see any signal initially on the video. Did they go to the monitor before assessing the T?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

This seems like a pretty good example of why the NFHS might want to address contacting the shooter/crossing the FT line that's being discussed in the IAABO/NFHS thread. The new NFHS rule on entering the lane on release has definitely increased the potential of this exact scenario occurring at the HS level.

As I expected, things got more physical during FT's this year.

Sure -- and if this happens -- get the foul. No need for it to be a violation, imo.

And, while they did get the call wrong, it's pretty hard to figure it out during play -- by the time you recognize it was a ful and blow the whistle, the ball was through.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

This seems like a pretty good example of why the NFHS might want to address contacting the shooter/crossing the FT line that's being discussed in the IAABO/NFHS thread. The new NFHS rule on entering the lane on release has definitely increased the potential of this exact scenario occurring at the HS level.

Here's the second part of the "IAABO Rule":

If there is contact on the free throw shooter by the defender who breaks the free throw line plane, ignore contact unless intentional. (9-1-3-B)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

As I expected, things got more physical during FT's this year.

I'm seeing more players on the lane faking to try to get opponents to enter early. So far, just fakes, no opponents entering early due to the fake.

The fake (on the marked lane space) has to cause the opponent to enter early, or no violation? Right?

Shooter fakes? Automatic violation? Right?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

This seems like a pretty good example of why the NFHS might want to address contacting the shooter/crossing the FT line that's being discussed in the IAABO/NFHS thread. The new NFHS rule on entering the lane on release has definitely increased the potential of this exact scenario occurring at the HS level.

As I expected, things got more physical during FT's this year.

I have not seen anything much more physical than I saw during any other rebounding action. And most defenders only go up to the shooter, I have not seen much pushing or bumping. Yes it has come close to happening, but I hope there is no change in the rule. We just should call the foul.

And I think what Bob said about a mechanics change is a good idea as the C is often trying to watch the flight of the ball.

Peace

[ILRef80]

I just don't understand how the crew messed this one up.

Could a foul have been called? Sure. The FT shooter was displaced. But nothing was called. They went to the monitor. It was clear the ball was still live. The contact wasn't flagrant. There was nothing they could do. For Wymer to come up with the interpretation is really, really bad. We should expect more from someone in his position. They didn't just kick a call. They misinterpreted the whole situation, WITH the benefit of review. They can't miss that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ILRef80

I just don't understand how the crew messed this one up.

Could a foul have been called? Sure. The FT shooter was displaced. But nothing was called. They went to the monitor. It was clear the ball was still live. The contact wasn't flagrant. There was nothing they could do. For Wymer to come up with the interpretation is really, really bad. We should expect more from someone in his position. They didn't just kick a call. They misinterpreted the whole situation, WITH the benefit of review. They can't miss that.

I agree. And I was told that officials have brain farts. So I guess that is acceptable in some people's eyes. But this was a very basic rule as well.

Peace