|
Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)
Can someone please pull the smack across the face of an Eastern Washington player from Georgetown at approximately 4:50 in the 1st half?
|
Can't believe it wasn't at least a FF1. However the ball was dead so that may have something to do with it. Not a NCAA rules guy.
|
are you talking about the incident after the travel?
That was shocking. What were the refs thinking? We were debating whether or not that could be an ejection, and they don't call anything. I'm totally confused. They can replay that. I'm sorry. But if they could look at the replay and didn't call anything, then they should not be doing another game in the tournament. Would it be a flagrant technical? |
Yes I am mutantducky-I am shocked too that 3 NCAA tournament caliber officials decided not to call that at least a flagrant 1.Is there any rules justification for a flagrant 2 here?
|
What's the rule on dead ball contact in NCAA? I sure thought it was an intentional swing.
|
From my seats this appeared to be the case:
The Georgetown player was excited after the travel and made a celebratory gesture which happened to make contact with the opponent as he got up. It was completely unintentional and the two covering officials understood that. They informed the EWU coach of what they saw BEFORE going to the monitor and made no call after the review. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It has never made sense to me why some officials call traveling and then turn away, walking down the court while they are signaling. |
I'd like to see it again but looking at it live it certainly looked intentional.
|
I saw the replay several times. For NFHS at least it would be a technical and some refs would have ejected him. I was just totally miffed by the no-call. Reggie Miller was against an ejection but even he thought something should be called.
btw off-topic, but the number of ads is killing. I'm kind of skipping a lot of the games. I also think there is some conspiracy that despite there being 3 games going on at once, they all seem to go to break at the same time....:mad: There has to be 20-30 minutes more ads than there used to be. |
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JKExJnusuCI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
First, I like for the Trail to keep his eyes on the players while giving his traveling signal.
That said, I have nothing on this play except a bunch of clumsiness. |
I don't believe the G'town player intended to hit the EW player, it was just a product of his excitement. Unless something happened before that would make you believe the action was intentional, I have nothing. Seeing the EW player's reaction after getting up and acknowledging the G'town player makes me think the call was correct too.
|
So, because the ball is dead - the travel call having come previous to the slap in the face - that the contact was not considered to rise to the level of intentional or flagrant, it is no-called?
If that is the case, what if the same contact happened during a live ball situation? It seems to me, that with the emphasis on contact above the shoulders, then such contact would be ruled a common foul. Thoughts? |
Quote:
Again, I'm not saying the lack of reaction leads to the call, but using that helps to see if the previous call was correct or not. BTW... what slap to the face? The G'town player hit the EW player in the chest. Oh, and I'm a Syracuse fan, and do not like G'town. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
I've got nothing.
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
"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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
I think the reactions following the event allayed any chance of a T being called (hmm is allayed used right there? :rolleyes:)
But what if the EW player had gotten up and in the GT player's face. The cause of that incident would have been the initial contact. You know what would have happened if that was the case? Refs would go to the replay and I can assure you a Tech would be called on the GT player. If I'm playing a game, or in any games I ref, if someone does what the Georgetown player did, there is likely going to be an argument and heated tempers. In this case there wasn't but I still can't see how you don't call a T here. I'm just totally miffed why some of you think what the refs is ok. the Georgetown player was wrong and there should have been a whistle for it. Preventive officiating. Yes, an ejection would have been too much. |
FYI...they did go to replay...and came to the conclusion of no T.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, the ability to keep his cool, like the player involved, is probably of the intangibles that got him a D1 scholarship. |
I just want to point out that what is excessive contact (which is the part of the intentional rule we're probably using in calling a T) during a live ball is different than what is excessive during a dead ball. i don't think you can use the mindframe of "well if it wasn't an intentional personal foul, then it won't be be technical foul." What is excessive depends on context of when the contact occurs.
Example...live ball and I swipe down hard on the arm of the dribbler in an attempt to steal the ball. Foul I do the same thing after the ball is CLEARLY dead...five seconds after a whistle...that's probably going to get a T 9/10 times. As to the video...I can live w/o there being a T. |
Quote:
Furthermore, my opinion is that you are incorrect. The standard is the same by rule. |
Quote:
So, you do it your way, and others will do it their way. |
Quote:
Watch any college game where there's a dead ball contact T...I guarantee you that a good percentage of those plays, the contact, if it would have occurred during a live ball would NOT be called a FF1...but they would be backed up by rule and their supervisors cause the contact was excessive for the situation...even if it wouldn't be for a live ball. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Please cite the text of the rule. What terminology does the rule use for the the dead ball contact standard? We need to officiate according to the rules, not what you think is appropriate. We had this same discussion a few weeks ago. You were wrong by rule the and still are now. There is no rule extant instructing the officials to judge contact one second after the ball becomes dead differently from contact five or ten seconds later. The rule is written to cover ALL dead ball contact without regard to the timeframe. |
Quote:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent; 2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; 3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score; 4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and 5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. 6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow which is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7) e. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 contact technical foul. Next subject... |
Quote:
But then we have to ask what is intentional or flagrant. For the most part, this is going to deal with excessive contact during a dead ball. We almost never officiate in absolutes...what is excessive in one situation would be common foul in another. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
ART. 7 A player shall not: Intentionally or flagrantly contacting (sic) an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul. Nowhere in the rule book does it state that dead ball "intentional" equals the actions that would be "intentional" if the ball were live. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Intent matters. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would disagree with ruling it a dead ball contact technical, but can see justification. I do not see any justification for ruling this unsporting behavior. |
Quote:
Quote:
NCAA 10-3, page 92: Section 3. CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but not limited to, the following: a. Disrespectfully addressing an official or gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment. b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene gestures toward another player or bench personnel. c. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction. d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner. e. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead. f. A flagrant noncontact infraction that involves extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct when the ball is dead or live. g. Participating after having been disqualified (noncontact flagrant 2 technical). h. Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out (flagrant noncontact infraction). i. Fighting as in Rule 10-5. j. Disrespectfully contacting an official |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As I said, do as you wish. That's the beautiful thing about the word "interpretation". And obviously you are only speaking of NFHS, as the NCAA citations clearly show your opinion is not correct for that venue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you giving the ball back to the team that traveled in this situation or are you going POI? There IS a difference. |
for future reference
say this play in NFHS. So travel, then dead ball contact that you deem excessive and a T is called. Is it two fts and the ball for the team that traveled. Or two fts and the ball back the Georgetown team(assuming this is High school). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"e. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 contact technical foul." The problem is that the rule uses the word "and" while you are applying it as if it said "or" in your attempt to justify calling a tech for just unnecessary contact during a dead ball. You are fortunate that the powers where you are support your method because the rules book language does not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
ok so contact T. In this case the whistle blew, the play was clearly dead, and the GT player made contact. Not a flagrant 2 but a clear example of a contact dead ball technical. If you let that go, then what's stopping players in games from doing what he did? I've had games after a violation, when the defender will wrest the ball out of an offensive player's hand. That may not be a T, they are trying to get the ball back and play to resume quicker. But here there is contact and it does not seem incidental at all. IMO
errr, watch it out 33 to 38 seconds. The GT players knows there is a whistle. I don't know if it is just a stupid celebration that went over the top, but how in the world can you people say you'd ignore the contact he made? He clearly hits the EW player. It is a textbook case of a dead ball T. per Nevada Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This just wasn't unnecessary or excessive. There is some amount of time after the whistle where we allow the players to wind down before that would be considered unnecessary or excessive. If not, you'd have a bunch of silly T's every game whenever you had the possibility of a travel or a foul when the travel happens first or two or more possible fouls. It is a matter of deliberately contacting the opponent when it is clear the ball is dead vs. brief continued play after the whistle. |
I wouldn't call the T either, although I've worked with many partners who wouldn't hesitate to do so. I think a T could certainly be justified, though a minority of officials world call it.
|
Quote:
Even allowing for a moving threshold for "excessive", this doesn't even come close, IMO. It looks bad because the other guy had gotten his feet twisted into knots. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see this as either. The contact is not excessive, and I don't think you can have a DBC technical foul if the contact isn't excessive based on the wording of the rule. I recognize what's "excessive" is up to judgment, but this isn't even that close to me. I wouldn't question a partner who called it on the floor because I still think random and quick technical fouls are good for the game overall. You've got a better case for tuanting, IMO, taunting is directed at the opponent (the exception would be actions designed to draw attention to himself, but this isn't that). Unless I can tell for sure he's directing his actions at his opponent rather than getting a bit exuberant after forcing a travel, I don't think think I can justify a taunting T. If the kid who traveled hadn't made himself so vulnerable and off balance, he doesn't fall and we're not having this discussion. |
Quote:
A2 cuts through the paint, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. Common foul A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. In my game it's a T, in your game it's a .... |
A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Change ...
Quote:
Good example of a common foul (not an intentional foul) when the ball is live, and an intentional (technical) foul when the ball is dead, for the same, exact, physical contact. And, by the way, I was leaning toward siding with Nevadaref's, "There is no rule extant instructing the officials to judge contact one second after the ball becomes dead differently from contact five or ten seconds later" interpretation. Nevaderef may, by strict interpretation of the written rule, and definition, be correct, but sometimes we just have to officiate the game. On the other hand, the definition (NFHS) of intentional foul does include the phrase, "but are not limited to", which may bolster BadNewsRef's interpretation. On the other hand (am I running out of hands?) can't we just call such contact (A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path) an unsporting technical foul, which includes the (NFHS) phrase, "is not limited to, acts, or conduct such as", thus avoiding the entire intentional, not intentional, live ball, dead ball, debate, or is that taking the easy way out? Now? Who do I want to antagonize the least, BadNewsRef, or Nevaderef; and how does, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", fit this situation? Maybe, this way? https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.6080...4&pid=15.1&P=0 |
Cincinnati vs UK
Contact dead ball T...perfect example of contact that would be a common foul during live ball play....but called a T during a dead ball. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57pm. |