Yes, they administered it as an F1 (incorrect), despite telling the broadcast team and PA announcer that they ruled a technical.

They treated it was a flagrant 1 personal foul as they made the Miami player shoot the ball...they then gave the ball back to Miami at the nearest spot (rather than POI like I stated earlier...I was thinking that since they did tell the telecast that they went with a flagrant 1 technical foul...of which there is no such animal).

NevadaRef:

I agree with you regarding the type of foul if the officials deemed a foul was committed. The game fee fine is for another discussion.

When I first watched the play from the initial TV angle I thought that R33 had fouled W24 causing him to make such a motion that caused him to lose control of the ball with the ball then hitting R23 in the face. After watching it from other angles, I do not believe that R33 fouled W24.

Since the officials ruled that R33 did not foul W24 this means that the officials have to read W24's mind as to why he "threw" or "lost control of" the ball against R23's face. Again, after watching the play several times from different angles, it is my opinion that W24 did not intentionally throw the ball at R23's face.

From the different angles that I watched I observed the following things:

a) It appears that W24's right arm was somewhat behind his head and he may not have had the best control of the ball and lost control of the ball while trying to bring his right arm forward to match his left arm in relation to his head and body.

b) W24 landed on both feet simultaneously (toes first and then rocked back on his feet) and when he rocked back his center of mass was behind his feet. This may have given him the feeling of falling backwards out of control and in an effort to not fall and commit a traveling violation he instinctively throw the ball at R23 who was standing out of bounds.

The fact that W24 "threw" or "lost control of" the ball so quickly after grabbing the rebound leads me to believe that his actions were a combination of (a) and (b).

That said, if the officials believed that W24 had committed a foul it is either a Class A Technical Foul or it is a Flagrant 2 Technical Foul. I would further add that if I did conclude that W24 committed a foul, I would use the following standard as to whether it was a Class A TF or a Flagrant 2 TF:

Class A TF: W24's act was intentional and the threw the ball at any part of R23's body except his head or groin.

Flagrant 2TF: W24's act was intentional and the threw the ball at R23's head or groin.

That's my two cents for a Sunday afternoon. Junior and I have an H.S. baseball/fast pitch softball umpires meeting this evening and I am already dreaming of warm weather and baseball games.

MTD, Sr.

I think we've established that the crew messed up the penalty administration here.

Here's my question: Suppose they deem the thrown ball a Class A Unsporting Technical. When does the ball become dead? Is it dead as soon as the act is committed (i.e. the thrown ball is released), or is it dead when the result of the act is apparent (i.e. the thrown ball strikes the Miami player in the head, who also causes it to be OOB at that point)?

Why do I ask? I don't think it would have mattered here, because either way Louisville gets the ball at the POI which is under the basket in both cases. But in another scenario, it might make a difference as the spot nearest where the ball was located when the foul occurred.

The Miami player was standing out of bounds, so the ball becomes dead when it strikes his face. For some reason, the L must not have registered that he was standing out of bounds, thus the late whistle from C.

Another aspect of this play for our NCAA gurus: was this even a monitor-reviewable play?

yes, for FF2 possibilities.

Does anyone think this should just have been a simple OOB call? That's all I would have had in real time when I watched it. It's common (and accepted) that you can attempt to throw the ball off of an opponent to avoid an OOB call (or for other reasons such as to avoid a 5 second violation). This doesn't look any different to me, other than it happened to get him in the face.

My thought on the play was simply that the rebounder lost track of where he was on the court and thought that he was about to land OOB. Did the instinctive thing and threw it off of the opponent before landing. His reaction after the play also doesn't suggest this was malicious or unsportsmanlike.

That would have been my decision.

I didn't watch the OP, but most of the time, when you throw the ball off another player, you throw it off the legs, not the face.

And, most of the time, when you intentionally throw the ball at another's face, it's a T.

That and the player is usually actually close to being OOB..for a D-I athlete, he's nowhere close to being OOB.

Call the OOB and pretend there's nothing more there...and then wait for the inevitable fight to happen.

Any time you think about tossing someone I think you need to look at the monitor and this was such a strange (cuss word) play they needed to to figure out what the hell happened. What was that….

If you look at the replay rule as written it talks about contact and whether it occurred/severity. Mentions personal fouls, F1, F2 and contact F2 technicals, and contact dead ball technicals. Also, downgrading/upgrading something to a Class A technical foul isn't one of the options listed. I certainly think this play was obviously more like reviewable "contact" plays than "mouthing off" plays that aren't reviewable…just a weird play.

Refereeing's hard...

Honestly, I got nothing. I think getting hit in the face was unfortunate, but not done on purpose or trying to hurt anyone. I think he was trying to save the ball and hit him in the face as we see often. I also cannot believe they went with a FF at all. There was no personal contact. Only thing you can come up with is a T and IMO that was not there. But at least I would understand if they called a T, but I do not think you can review the monitor for a T.

Peace

I know where you're coming from. I'm calling a T on him...for dumbness i suppose...:roll eyes:--i just can't let him throw the ball directly at someones head…I don't think he was trying to hurt him or be an as. per se, but I do think he meant to throw the ball off the other player's head. Hit his shoulder next time..

Players have been doing this for years. I think he was caught in the air and panicked and did something he was not really intending. I think it would be no different if he hit him in the "mid-section" area as well. But I do not totally disagree. I think the rules committee might just want to address this so that there is little to no confusion how we should proceed with a call or not a call.

Peace