Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

[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.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually, it's easy to KNOW that this is a live ball foul. Even if you don't see this play happen, you know that the ball doesn't go thru the net and THEN a FT shooter is blocked out. It simply never happens like that.

The fact that they didn't call the foul when it happened, went to the monitor and reviewed it, and STILL got it wrong boggles my mind. Almost NONE of the Dead ball Contact Rechnical Foul criteria were met on this play.

If I'm the supervisor, seven guys are getting a phone call from me (3 officials, each head coach, each AD, & my boss) and probably two officials are losing an assignment......

[griblets]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

I'll second that.

[Nevadaref]

Let's put this play in an NFHS game and say that the contact did occur after the ball passed through the basket.
Now we have a rule which tells us to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.
What do you guys think is the right standard for making that determination?
Do you use Terry Wymer's "in an unnecessary manner" to judge the contact or would you consider if the contact happened during a live ball and ask yourself if you would call an intentional or flagrant personal foul? I think that the mindset with which we examine such things can render different conclusions.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Let's put this play in an NFHS game and say that the contact did occur after the ball passed through the basket.
Now we have a rule which tells us to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.
What do you guys think is the right standard for making that determination?
Do you use Terry Wymer's "in an unnecessary manner" to judge the contact or would you consider if the contact happened during a live ball and ask yourself if you would call an intentional or flagrant personal foul? I think that the mindset with which we examine such things can render different conclusions.

I would lean towards the later ... would it have been intentional during a live ball. But I would give very little benefit of the doubt to the fouler (similar to how I would handle it in a game where players had already had some rough/hard fouls -- more likely to rule intentional on something borderline).

The foul in the OP, in my opinion, should be ignored if it occured after the ball was dead as I think the contact was minimal and not dirty in any way -- just happened to hit a sensitive area.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I would lean towards the later ... would it have been intentional during a live ball. But I would give very little benefit of the doubt to the fouler (similar to how I would handle it in a game where players had already had some rough/hard fouls -- more likely to rule intentional on something borderline).

The foul in the OP, in my opinion, should be ignored if it occured after the ball was dead as I think the contact was minimal and not dirty in any way -- just happened to hit a sensitive area.

The contact was intentional, it wasn't an accident. What reason would there be for such contact after the ball is dead?

[Shooter14]

The ball was not dead when contact occurred. It hadn't even entered the cylinder yet. There is a lot of contact that happens while the ball is live that is intentional. Should that be called the same way? #1 wasn't seeking his private section, he wasn't even looking. He made a normal basketball box out while the play was live. The only thing that should have been done about it is "sorry coach I missed the contact". But instead, they about send Illinois straight to the NIT with some made up stuff about "dead ball technical". Never saw a dead ball technical while the ball is LIVE!

What's hilarious to me is that after they tried justifying that within the rules, the player misses 2 out of 3, misses a short jumper in the lane, and then grabs Illinois' number 21 from behind to commit a foul and nothing other than a common foul is called. If they're so dead set on the rules, then call an intentional there as well!

But I am just an Illinois fan griping (within the rules). If they lost the game that way, it would have ruined my week.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The contact was intentional, it wasn't an accident. What reason would there be for such contact after the ball is dead?

So are you saying that had the ball been dead, you would have an intentional foul under NFHS rules?

My initial opinion of the OP, was that the contact was at the level of a common foul for illegal contact while attempting to box out. Hypothetically speaking, had the ball just gone through the basked and become dead, then that contact would be ignored. To your question, one reason why there would be such contact is that it sometimes takes a second for players to react to the fact that the play is over.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

So are you saying that had the ball been dead, you would have an intentional foul under NFHS rules?

My initial opinion of the OP, was that the contact was at the level of a common foul for illegal contact while attempting to box out. Hypothetically speaking, had the ball just gone through the basked and become dead, then that contact would be ignored. To your question, one reason why there would be such contact is that it sometimes takes a second for players to react to the fact that the play is over.

Dead ball contact shall be ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant. That contact was not UNINTENTIONAL. So if a player did that after the ball is dead, I have no problem T'ing them up.

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The contact was intentional, it wasn't an accident. What reason would there be for such contact after the ball is dead?

The ball was in the air, on a bonus free throw, when the contact occured. It was not a dead ball. That's the main reason for the outrage over the call. The crew made up their own interpretation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ILRef80

The ball was in the air, on a bonus free throw, when the contact occured. It was not a dead ball. That's the main reason for the outrage over the call. The crew made up their own interpretation.

I know all that. Did you read what I was responding to?

[ILRef80]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Let's put this play in an NFHS game and say that the contact did occur after the ball passed through the basket.
Now we have a rule which tells us to ignore contact during a dead ball unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.
What do you guys think is the right standard for making that determination?
Do you use Terry Wymer's "in an unnecessary manner" to judge the contact or would you consider if the contact happened during a live ball and ask yourself if you would call an intentional or flagrant personal foul? I think that the mindset with which we examine such things can render different conclusions.

I don't judge the contact in the play as excessive or intentional, thus I'd have nothing (might warn the player not to displace the shooter). There's no reason to create a bigger problem by calling a foul here. JMO.