Miami at Louisville Player Throws Ball Off Opponent's Face (Video)
 

About 1:50 first half. Louisville player throws ball off Miami player's face. It was called a flagrant 1 I believe. Do personal fouls include contact caused by the ball?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GifQibtgUHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's a great question. I have no idea. I did a quick perusal of both NCAAM and NFHS rules and could not find anything about either contact with the ball nor technical infractions regarding thrown balls. Part of the reason the latter is not included is, I think, because sometimes a ball is thrown at a player intentionally and is perfectly legitimate, i.e. when falling out of bounds and trying to save possession. Makes me wonder if, had this been the situation here, we would have had anything at all?

That said, in this situation it sure doesn't look like the Louisville player was trying to save the ball. Not sure what he was thinking (he's probably not sure, either).

Class A unsporting tech seems like the right answer, but the non-ejection clauses in that class (1a-1d) do not really fit. So by default I think you are left with no choice but to consider the contact caused by the ball an extension of the concept of contact caused by the player. If F1 Personal was the call, I think they got it right, but it sure would be nice if the rules were more clear on this.

This is either a technical foul or a legal play.
Either the official deems that the player made a smart move to strike the opponent with the ball while that opponent was out of bounds and this gain possession for his team with it being unfortunate that the ball contacted him in the face or the official deems this to be an unsporting act/attempt to injure an opponent and a technical foul (perhaps an ejection) is appropriate.

What is not appropriate is any type of personal foul as there was no contact between the persons involved. If the crew indeed charged a Flagrant 1 personal foul after consulting the monitor, each of them should be fined their game checks.

Great point, and after taking a closer look at 10-3-1, I agree with your assessment. Since the ball was live, I believe we're limited to calling this a Class A Tech for an unsporting act that's not necessarily enumerated in NCAAM 10-3-1, which begins with the following words:

A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but not limited to, the following:

Key words in italics.

Why did the Lead let play continue? At a minimum Red was out of bounds when the ball hit him in the face. Center came with late whistle.

Sometimes people are presented with a play they've never seen before or never have had in their careers.

Fine a game check over ruling a F1 instead of a Class A technical? Overboard, even if it is an incorrect application of the rules.

According to the broadcast (I just watched the replay), they ruled a "flagrant technical foul," which makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "flagrant 1 technical" in NCAA, and if it had been a flagrant 2 technical, Harrell would've been ejected. My guess would be that they ruled it a Class A technical foul and just misspoke.

They ruled it a flagrant 1 personal foul and made the player who was hit in the face shoot the free throws. They then resumed from the POI.

What was POI? OOB on orange?

Refereeing's hard but ...If you rule a Flagrant 1 (intentional nfhs) (which I disagree with here for reasons stated by others)offended player shoots two and you would give the ball back to red near the spot of foul. Not POI. --
Class A tech--any red player shoots two and ball goes back to POI which here would be a white throw in on end line near spot. White had team control. Other choice is F2 non contact tech. eject player, shoot two and ball on either side of division line for red. I would have gone the class A route.

Refereeings hard...you get something weird...everyone's waiting...on you. It happens...to the best

They gave the ball to orange at the spot nearest the foul–under the Louisville basket.

Mike Eades told the broadcast team (which included Doris Burke) that they ruled it a technical foul, and the box score play-by-play also says that it was a technical. Problem is, there's no such thing as just a "flagrant technical foul" in NCAA, and if it actually had been ruled a technical foul, I highly doubt the big guy would've been shooting the free throws. I'm guessing this crew will have some explaining to do to their supervisor.

Well they technically didn't get this correct either. They gave the ball to Miami after the fact...at the point where the ball went OOB. Strictly speaking, it should have been Louisville's ball after the administration of the foul.

So they did it as if it were a F1?

I have T'd a player for purposely throwing the ball off an opponent's head.

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

Concussion ???
 

Completely agree. If we're so concerned about head injuries these days (rightfully so), it should be encoded in the rules that throwing a ball at someone's head, regardless of tactics or intent, is some kind of foul. I leave the specifics to the rules committee, but I believe this should be addressed to give more objective criteria to officials.

We did this for elbows above the shoulders and the message has been getting through. We can do this, too. Let's make the game safer.

Let's taake a look at Case Book 10.3.6 SITUATION B

The subject has been addressed, and presently puts the onus on the covering official, IOW, it is presently a judgmnt call. How would one move towards less judgment, and more of a codification of the elements involved in such a play?

You probably can't.

Just like the same reason that a ball that hits the foot is not always a kick, sometimes, a ball that hits <insert body part> is not intended to hit that body part. Swinging elbows is an act very much intended to clear space by threatening contact...and if they connect (and even if they don't) it must be dealt with.

I've seen plays where someone is diving for a ball going OOB and slings it back behind them such that it hits someone in the face. They had no idea where it was going other than back towards the court.

We're always going to need to apply judgement to these plays.

exactly. I had a play last week where a girl tried to "save" the ball, but it slipped off her fingers and headed right for my head.

No way would I give a T for that.

I do not think you can take any contact with a head should be outlawed. For one there are many situations like this were a save is going to result in a ball hitting someone in the head. Maybe there needs to be more awareness under the rules, but I would hate to have a violation of the rules for any head contact. It is one thing to have an elbow hit a head, but it is different if the ball hits someone in the head.

This is also such a rare play anyway. I just did not like the way the officials decided this either.

Peace

I believe the player's history for stirring up sh!t in games played into the decision.

So he is a dirty player? Or he has a history of being dirty?

If that is the case, I do understand the reaction. ;)

He was suspended earlier in the year for a fight....including contact with an official:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd2-dYXDZxs

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Sd2-dYXDZxs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm a life-long Louisville fan, and I get tired of his antics.

I forgot about this situation.

I clearly understand now. ;)

Peace

Day Late, Dollar Short ...
 

10.3.6 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a designated spot
throw-in. B1 is putting great pressure on and the count is at four seconds when
A1 throws the ball and it strikes B1’s face. The ball rebounds from B1’s face
directly out of bounds. RULING: The administering official will have to make a
decision based upon a number of observations. Was the throw-in to B1’s face
purely accidental or was it a voluntary, planned act? Was the ball contact caused
by the movement of the defender? Was the act of a an unsporting nature? The
administering official must be aware that players often react negatively in situations
where they are frustrated or are retaliating for something which happened
earlier in the game.

So you can whip a ball in midair at an opponents private parts and it is just an OOB, but if you hit him in the face it is a technical( if the rule is applied correctly)?

What's the difference.

Not black and white.

Says who?

It's not that black and white. If I think he aimed for the junk, he's at least getting a T.

B1 was standing OOB. I see nothing wrong with the play....UNLESS, A1 was throwing the ball with the intent to harm or injure B1 in an unsporting manner. And that is all subjective on the official's part.