Wisconsin vs Kentucky (Video 6/6)

[Adam]

Final warning, posts critical of referees, as opposed to discussing and even criticizing calls, will be deleted. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

[Rich]

When a suspended member creates an account to circumvent a suspension, both accounts are permanently banned.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by abcdefg

Wouldn't the shot clock hitting zero mean 0.0?

No, it could mean 0.04

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not saying they didn't miss this one, but they're used to listening for the horn. This should be reviewable.

Historically, many clocks hit 0 as they count down the last second, or they show 0.0 as they count down the last tenth. I think you're right on shot clocks, though.

It is reviewable under 2 minutes

[bainsey]

From my perspective...

1. I thought the UW player was fouled on the shot, which should have negated any possible OOB call. Still, I also have him in the air with the ball, before he landed in bounds.

2. Easy TC foul. The defender likely bailed a bit, but he was going down.

3. I can undersand why the crew passed on any foul, upon viewing the replay. I'm not convinced the open-hand contact was intentional, but merely careless. I'm dipping into my soccer bag here, but careless isn't an F1, reckless is.

4. Had there been no extended arm, there'd be no PC foul, for where I sit.

5. When I watched the game, I ran back my DVR, frame-by-frame, to see whether the ball was released on time. When using the CBS graphic clock, the ball was out of his hands when the clock reached 0. Looking at the real shot clock in this footage shows the graphic and actual shot clock still aren't synched up.

6. Easy peasy PC. I don't understand how a block is even considered here.

[Rich]

By the way, I was wrong. It wasn't a dead ball on the hit to Gasser. Just watched it again. Ball hit inbounds and the contact happened just before the shot clock expired.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by bainsey

6. Easy peasy PC. I don't understand how a block is even considered here.

I"m not a basketball guy so I know what I don't know. I assume the basketball officials are right unless someone knowledgeable tells me otherwise.

One thought I had when I saw this was the contact from the player with the ball was not directly on the defender. It was more at an angle so I wondered if that was a factor in the block call. No one has mentioned it here, so I wasn't sure if that was part of the consideration.

I'm glad to see for the most part these calls are supportable. The failure to re-establish and shot clock are both undersstandable but unfortunate if they are wrong. There has to be an interesting explanation on the potential flagrant foul because everything I've heard from educated officials is it should have been at least a flagrant 1.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

There has to be an interesting explanation on the potential flagrant foul because everything I've heard from educated officials is it should have been at least a flagrant 1.

Because it didn't meet the guidelines for an F1. Three D1 officials on the final four looked at it on replay and found that it wasn't an F1. Inadvertent contact to the face that isn't excessive is not an F1. Elbow contact could be, but not the underside of the wrist when he was just trying to get free from being held. It should have been a common foul, but it was not the kind of contact that makes it an F1.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I"m not a basketball guy so I know what I don't know. I assume the basketball officials are right unless someone knowledgeable tells me otherwise.

One thought I had when I saw this was the contact from the player with the ball was not directly on the defender. It was more at an angle so I wondered if that was a factor in the block call. No one has mentioned it here, so I wasn't sure if that was part of the consideration.

I think it was close and probably wouldn't have called a block.

However, it looked like the defender never got completely into the path. He moved sideways just enough to get his shoulder in there but not his torso. The dribbler was going across and not at him. I don't call it that way but I know many officials who do. If the defender doesn't get their torso into the path, they don't consider it LGP.

[Raymond]

6) It is a stretch, but the only thing I see getting Kaminsky for is not being perfectly vertical. But I personally would have liked a no-call on that play.

[JRutledge]

Play #1: It was simply missed. I can see how, but it was missed.

Play #2: Great call to get. Official stayed with the play and got it right.

Play #3: I think if they called a FF1, no one would have cared. I can see why they decided it was incidental, but to me it would have been better to go FF1.

Play #4: Good call. I give the defender the benefit of the doubt on these kinds of plays.

Play #5: The ball is clearly in the hand with the shot clock saying zero, but I cannot clearly hear the horn.

Play #6: I have a PC foul or nothing. Frank the tank was there.

Peace

[Raymond]

4) I had a block originally, and still do after replays. I do not know why the Trail did not take this play. He had the perfect angle to see the primary defender move into A1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1: It was simply missed. I can see how, but it was missed.

Play #2: Great call to get. Official stayed with the play and got it right.

Play #3: I think if they called a FF1, no one would have cared. I can see why they decided it was incidental, but to me it would have been better to go FF1.

Play #4: Good call. I give the defender the benefit of the doubt on these kinds of plays.

Play #5: The ball is clearly in the hand with the shot clock saying zero, but I cannot clearly hear the horn.

Play #6: I have a PC foul or nothing. Frank the tank was there.

Peace

Exactly my thoughts

[JetMetFan]

I'm only going to talk about the play that was reviewed which, IMO, was an F1.

Yes, the UK player was held coming across the court so calling *that* foul stops everything. That being said, what clinched it as an F1 for me were the views starting at 0:43 on APG's clip. UK #41 plants his right foot then swings his left hand and catches UW #21 under the chin.

When judging an F1/IF or an F2/FF I've been told by people above me on the food chain to consider three factors: windup, impact and follow through. If you have two of the three it's an F1/IF. All three is an F2/FF. For me, this had the first two elements: It wasn't a huge windup - more like a boxer hitting someone with a jab - but it was definitely visible on video. The impact was significant in that it was on UW #21's neck.

[KCRC]

I don't have nearly the understanding of the F1/F2 rule as I thought. Based on several F1s I've seen throughout the season, I thought this would be a no brainer. Several folks on this forum that I respect a great deal are OK with the no call on review.

I'm attaching a play that was ruled an F2 earlier this season. I think the hit on Gosser was more egregious than the attached play that was ruled an F2. Help me understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbAjk6c3GGg