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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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?

They went to reply to review the play

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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...

Hard to figure out? I completely disagree. The slot was watching the flight of the ball, pure and simple. The shooter and the guys across the lane are his responsibility. Easy common foul call if you're looking where you're supposed to. Instead, white coach was probably livid, they went to the monitor, maybe even realized all they had was CF (which you cannot assess after review and a no-call on court) but decided to call CDBT to save face because the shooter got hit in the shamrocks.

Just because a hard box out of the shooter usually only happens in GJV basketball doesn't mean that's the only place it happens.

Someone probably got a phone call over this one.

[bob jenkins]

Sorry - -it's easy to get the foul -- it's hard to determine during action whether it happened before (live ball) or after (dead ball) the ball went through the basket.

And, honestly, I'd favor a mechanics change where once the ball is released (and, heck, maybe even before) -- T is responsible for violations by and fouls on the shooter. C needs to quickly shift to watch the rebounding action on his side.

[JRutledge]

That is a foul IMO. Usually you do not see that much contact.

I was told about this yesterday and it was assumed that the kid embellished. I think he got hit in the sensitive area and reacted. I would have had no problem with a foul here.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is a foul IMO. Usually you do not see that much contact.

I was told about this yesterday and it was assumed that the kid embellished. I think he got hit in the sensitive area and reacted. I would have had no problem with a foul here.

Peace

Definitely a foul. Problem is, the crew ruled that the contact came after the ball was dead, and thus charged a CDBTF. Should've been a personal foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Definitely a foul. Problem is, the crew ruled that the contact came after the ball was dead, and thus charged a CDBTF. Should've been a personal foul.

And once missed, it's missed forever even with the monitor review since it was nothing more than a common foul.

I agree with the post above -- they felt like they had to get something and it certainly wasn't a F1. So they r-e-a-c-h-e-d and said it was a dead ball foul, which allowed them to call a technical. Except the ball wasn't dead when the contact occurred.

[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)