Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

If the ball had been in flight at the time of this contact would you call an intentional personal foul?

I'm curious what makes you have the opinion that this contact is "intentional" in the basketball definition sense, not the Webster's English dictionary definition sense.

[just another ref]

All this provokes the question whether the contact landing in a sensitive area can change the call. Had the contact in the video occurred a few inches to one side or the other the effects would have barely been noticed if at all.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the ball had been in flight at the time of this contact would you call an intentional personal foul?

I'm curious what makes you have the opinion that this contact is "intentional" in the basketball definition sense, not the Webster's English dictionary definition sense.

Because Webster's definition applies for me in this case.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Because Webster's definition applies for me in this case.

I'm surprised to hear that response from you.

So are you calling an intentional personal foul if this action takes place during a live ball?

[Raymond]

B1 is whistled for a handcheck. A1 takes 2 more dribbles after the whistle and turns to pass the ball to the official. B1 knows the play is dead but attempts to knock the pass down and instead whacks A1 across the wrists.

Is that a tech?

[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 BadNewsRef

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

Ah..mea culpa.