I was wondering the same thing.

Now I finally understand what's wrong with you! ;)

Looks to be the right call despite what it looked like at first glance and what the commentators were ranting about.

The takeaway from this is to not turn away from the players while signaling. I don't understand the logic behind walking to the other end while signaling.

Agree...nothing to call during the dead ball. If it had been a live ball, it would have been a common foul.

there is a further video with the EW player pointing on the ground, basically going WTF was that for. The Georgetown player should have been T'd up there. That was an awful miss call by the refs. Sure maybe the excitement got the better of him. But he made contact with the EW player after the whistle in an aggressive fashion. You can't just let something like that go as the commentators were saying it could lead to trouble/retaliation later in the game. On the TV side the initial debate was about whether or not he could be ejected but they settled on flagrant foul 1. No one expected a no-call here. I do agree the reaction after with the players greeting each other probably helped but I think the refs should have looked at this more carefully.

They did look at this more carefully. They went to the monitor and reviewed the play. After doing that, they still decided that the action didn't warrant a technical foul.

I've got nothing.

This is what I saw on replay.

You might be able to get away with a technical foul here, but video wouldn't support it.

If you toss this kid, I doubt the state would support most officials on that unless there's been a lot of extra curricular activity leading up to it.

On its own, this is nothing but a talk to.

Me too, if he slaps him in the face, this whole discussion changes.

Quoting the commentators isn't helping your cause.

Wouldn't that be a illegal (double) dribble, not a travel?

I agree with the no call, since the ball was dead. That sort of contact would be a common foul during a live ball in my opinion.

If this is the right video, I must say that a large number of you have lost your minds. I see ZERO contact to the face. Minimal contact (and inadvertent at that) to the torso, perhaps an arm. And then significant embellishment by the traveller, going to the ground for no reason.

I'm calling this tech every time. This is the stuff that leads to fights. I don't care if it was unintentional or not, you can't do that. I don't know why other posters are saying this is not defendable by video, I think it is very defendable.

Contact during a dead ball is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant.

"Intentional" means that if it happened during a live ball, it must fit the definition of an intentional foul (FF1 in NCAA).

To do so, it must be one of the following:
1. Elbow to the head. NOPE
2. Excessive contact. NOPE
3. Done intentionally (to stop the clock or prevent it from starting). NOPE

As Hokie noted, this is a common foul during live ball, so it should be ignored if it occurs during a dead ball.

So, if it sn't intentional, what is the basis for a T??

Forget video, your stance is not defendable by rule.

And I really think the "this is the type of stuff that leads to fights" saying is overused. At the end of the play the EWU kid taps the Georgetown player on the back indicating that its all good. My guess is the GU player said something to the effect of "my bad" as he walked up to him.

Regardless, I think the officials ruled appropriately here. It was clumsy and looked ugly but it was unintentional. They reviewed it, got it right, and moved onto the game.

And can we edit the OP. There is nothing anywhere close to a smack across the face on this play. Thats completely inaccurate and misleading.