That crew did an excellent job I thought.They called what needed to get called,handled their coaches pretty well and it's just a shame when announcers get all over officials like that.I'd like to see Doug put on a whistle for awhile and see how much he enjoys it lol.

What he said was this kind of play has been called a foul all year. He then said he didn't think it should be called a foul, but was being called a foul all year. I do agree with him about that. I've seen this play called a foul. Last year in the tournament Stephen F. Austin was the benefactor of a similar play that was called a foul and got a 4 point play. Not exactly the same but similar.

This play was called a foul all year when it was early in the game and not down 1 point with the final shot. Whether Doug likes it or not, our threshold for fouls does go up a bit in situations like this. For that play to be a foul, the foul almost has to call itself.

I don't think it was a foul that should be called at any point in the game, but I wouldn't have called it a travesty if it had been called.

So, just for my own understanding, help me out here - why is this one so obvious? It seemed to me to be a borderline call, ok either way. The defender does indeed get back down but his arms seem to be fairly angled towards the shooter. Yes, the shooter creates it...but isn't the arm angle close to a violation of verticality? I wouldn't like it, seems cheap for the shooter to 'buy' a foul like that, but would it have been wrong to call it?

You're right, it is not obvious either way. It's a play worth debating. One person has already said they would call it early in the game, but not on a last second shot. So yes, there are elements that need to be discussed.

I thought the arms were sufficiently vertical.

If I saw it clearly, I'm wouldn't call it at any point. If I got fooled on it, I'd call it. In reality, I may be more likely to get fooled on something like this early, but the shooter's lunge into the defender makes me think I'm probably not getting fooled on this live.

I'm good with the no-call also, but I think it's funny someone said it would have been the worst call of the year.

We (officials) need to be able to explain why the contact was not a foul if asked by an observer or a supervisor. We can't just say, "I had nothing".

It must be March.

This should be called consistently whether it is the first play of the game, or the last play of the game. With that said, no play is exactly the same. This is a last second shot where the offensive player is attempting to create contact and draw a foul. That context is important and differentiates this play from plays that look similar in earlier quarters.

I do not have a foul on the defender. I would not have a foul on the defender if this exact play happened in the first half, but I doubt this exact play would happen at any other time.

I agree. This probably wouldn't have even been the worst call of the 2nd half, and I say that without having seen any of the game.

The mistake that was made was NOT putting Jamie Luckie, Ed Corbett, and Bryan Kersey on this game. U of Dayton playing an NCAA tourney game IN Dayton?....needed 3 guys that would call a foul and not be influenced by the environment.

That was a foul. Defender was NOT vertical (check out his arms stretched out towards the shooter that made contact w/ the shooter). Boise St. deserved a better whistle than they got on that play.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't think that kind of play is a foul on the defense. The offense jumped into the defense and the defense was sufficiently vertical for me

This might get my vote for most ridiculous comment ever posted on this forum.

Honestly I think it was a foul. Would anyone have seen it any differently if that lack of verticality had happened in the post? Post players get away with a lot of physical play until they have lack of verticality.
Also not saying the T was straightlined cause he wasn't, but he also didn't move at all through that play to improve, which I think he could have a bit. And might that have changed how he saw the verticality.