Wisconsin vs Kentucky (Video 6/6)

[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.

[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.