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

[bballref3966]

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?

[APG]

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

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?

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Raymond]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[bballref3966]

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.

[APG]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[crosscountry55]

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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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?