Illinois vs Michigan State Foul On Free Thrower (Video)

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with your points on this.

A player intentionally contacts an opponent during a dead ball and it is not just accidental bumping that neither meant to have occur, it can be a T. There is no reason to smack an opponent anywhere well after the ball is dead.

If we can go back to the OP and 'assume' this was a dead ball play, is not the play at hand a defender blocking out the free throw shooter? And at that, some are determining or "reading the mind" of that defender that he is intentionally contacting him "below the belt" with a specific purpose, thus warranting a technical foul?

I'm not sure I could go there unless there were prior plays in this game that would lead me to a solid conclusion of the defender's intent on the block out.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If we can go back to the OP and 'assume' this was a dead ball play, is not the play at hand a defender blocking out the free throw shooter? And at that, some are determining or "reading the mind" of that defender that he is intentionally contacting him "below the belt" with a specific purpose, thus warranting a technical foul?
...

If this is a dead ball play, and the initial contact comes after the ball is dead, what is the purpose of the defense "boxing out" the shooter at that point?

Maybe I'm just cynical.

[La Rikardo]

If a player in control of the ball jumps toward his basket, fouls an opponent, and then dunks the ball, should we call a T for dunking a dead ball?

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If this is a dead ball play, and the initial contact comes after the ball is dead, what is the purpose of the defense "boxing out" the shooter at that point?

Maybe I'm just cynical.

It's not a dead ball play. Have you watched the video?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

It's not a dead ball play. Have you watched the video?

I'll replay this earlier exchange from up thread for your edification.

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

If we can go back to the OP and 'assume' this was a dead ball play, is not the play at hand a defender blocking out the free throw shooter? And at that, some are determining or "reading the mind" of that defender that he is intentionally contacting him "below the belt" with a specific purpose, thus warranting a technical foul?

I'm not sure I could go there unless there were prior plays in this game that would lead me to a solid conclusion of the defender's intent on the block out.

Not the same. Assuming it was a dead ball play instead of live ball, it would really matter who close to the dead ball it was. If it is splitting hairs between live/dead, I'm not going to deal with normal contact that happens to be just after the dead ball. Then, the question becomes whether the contact is normal or not. In this case, it can be argued that the contact was not normal but was intentional/excessive (or Flagrant 1). Many might not call it anything other than a common foul but other reasonable officials could.