Wisconsin vs Kentucky (Video 6/6)
 

11:25ish of the first half. Kentucky guy doesn't secure the rebound under Wisconsin's basket. Wisconsin player jumps from out of bounds and grabs the rebound and gets an easy layup without reestablishing inbounds first. Officials let the play go and I think it should have been OOB.

Great call on the pass and crash just under the 8-minute mark.

Flagrant 1 or 2. Wow. Nothing. Crazy.

How do you not have something on that shot to the face?

Basically a punch to the face Inexcusable.

And then follow it with a horseshit PC call.

Wow..shot clock violation?

I think they've been pretty consistent, especially trip-to-trip. I assume from your post about the possible F1 that you think the reffing has been biased against Wisconsin? Did you notice when you wrote your post that Kentucky had more team fouls?

52 seconds left. Block/charge. Thanks

Charge or nothing for me.

I'd say it was pretty consistent for the bulk of the game, but it wasn't working out that way later in the second half.

https://vine.co/v/OlIrbewjA62

The flagrant review.

This is an officiating forum. We discuss officiating, not fanboy tweets about officiating.

I posted it because it has a couple angles of video...

Look if you want to ask why that wasn't called a F1, that is great, but to post an article of a bunch of tweets from drunken fans is absurd. Join us in a healthy intelligent debate.....

it won't work for all the games but I think for the sweet 16 on I'd like to see an a different replay system. Take it away from the refs on the floor. They take too long but mainly I think there is something where they can't see it from an outside perspective. Those refs who did the game if they had been watching on tv I can assure you they would have called that a flagrant. But if you are reffing perhaps you just don't notice it, some kind of mental block. Nothing against the refs. They did fine in my opinion but that call was a complete miss and I think that is a failure with the current replay system.

Edited so nobody else misses the point.

And yes, I'm curious to know what their thought process was that allowed them to miss this clear call.

You will have to ask them. None of us were the officials on the game.

Peace

Guys, I cleaned up the thread...mostly for the post claiming bias (one poster) and subsequent replies that quoted said post.

Keep the discussion on actual officiating (which most of y'all actually have done) and not on questioning the integrity of the officials.

Thanks Dad !!!!! 😉😉😉😉😉

Because it wasn't flagrant. It wasn't an elbow to the face and it wasn't excessive contact. It was a basic swim move that is a common foul all game. It probably should have been a common foul but would have been wrong to go with a flagrant.

He swung. That wasn't a swim move.

I have no problem with what Cam just posted, if not mistaken, the try was released with about 1 sec left on shot clock.....MAYBE they took their focus off everything else and got caught up with whether the try was a shot clock violation or not....

UK graduate here, should have been a F1. Also should have been OOB and a shot clock violation. Some very good calls, some basically crappy ones.

I know it wasn't a college arena, but even in college arenas, when the shot clock goes off you can barely hear it on TV. The same for tonight as well. In an NBA arena, you can always hear the shot clock go off, in addition with the yellow light going off behind the backboard. How you can have a Final Four game without a shot clock yellow light behind the backboard is beyond unacceptable.

that was not even remotely close to being a basketball move. It was an obvious hit. I thought the Georgetown/EWU was a clear dead ball Tech but this one was even more egregious. There should be an outside replay system for flagrant and dead ball techs in these final games.

Devils advocate here as football official so i come in peace.

The vine shows it partially but if you watch you can see where the Wisc kid is grabbing the KU players jersey as he comes across the lane and restricting progress.

As the ball crosses the court the KU players wants to turn and go to the ball. I will assume as when some is grabbing me I want pull away as fast as I can. Now as someone mentioned earlier the KU player show characteristics of swim move.

With his left hand I believe he tries to clear or separate himself from the defender to create space then takes his right arm and swims over top to get to the ball side.

When his left arm comes across he does make contact with the Wisc player above the shoulder in the head area. Then follows that action with the swim move with his right hand. Which is a common move in the game of basketball as players try to separate from defenders.

Now the next aspect is the KU player is 6' 10" and Wisc kid is 6' 4" Thus when the arm comes across at what a 6"10 person feels is not high will look and appear to be really high on a person who is 6" shorter. I am thinking this is another reason this foul was passed on.

Like in football a small back blocking against a taller defensive player i can not penalize him for a low block just because he is short so the opposite could be a factor here.

Just my two cents worth

You haven't seen much basketball have you?

Textbook block. Or nothing.

No, that was PC.

Wrong game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFD7fgFuiTs
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BFD7fgFuiTs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE7apgbxfmY
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FE7apgbxfmY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmo__UWLSKw
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mmo__UWLSKw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrFntSaOUPg
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HrFntSaOUPg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqudigeGwSE
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xqudigeGwSE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dvka6aoFmg
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Dvka6aoFmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Every single one I'd have gone the other way on. The only one I'm not 100% sure on is the Kaminsky block/charge near the end.

A couple of those are pretty tough calls for a final four crew. They have all been there before. The player location happened very fast, but he hadn't established. The pass and crash was a very nice job of officiating the defense to get that one right. I have the defense there before the offense went air born. I don't know enough about college F1/F2 rules to know. It would have been nice if someone would have called a common foul to start with. At least then they could have had something. The next PC was close, but the overhead view showed the defense moving slightly into the offense, creating the contact. I am surprised that there was no light behind the backboard to make the shot clock call easier. I think most college courts have the shot clock hooked up to the backboard lights. Could they have stopped play to review this? The last play looks like a charge to me. Not sure what the defense did wrong.

Shot clock violation with 2:20 left?
 

The announcers danced around the non call and how it can't be reviewed.
No real replay, but did the first shot with about 3 sec left on shot clock hit the rim? Maybe the officials thought it did and ignored the horn for the shot clock expiring. Or or or they had a blatant easy call shot clock violation that was missed. What do you guys think?

I kept waiting to see it on the high-angle replay they showed. There were plenty of shot clock violations last night, and I just figured I couldn't see the yellow light from the standard viewing angle.

I wholeheartedly agree that not having this for the Final Four is completely unacceptable.

All three of the b/c plays are pc (one is technically a tc) calls, although the last one is close enough to a flop it could have been a no call. Loved the two charge calls here, though.

That F1 would've been a dead ball technical, no? The ball was already through the hoop.

Just my humble thoughts.

PLAY 1. Wisconsin player certainly appears to be in mid air while catching the ball.

Play 2. I can live with the TC call here, however as discussed in a previous thread, the defense is bailing out and not really taking on the contact, could live with anything that they had here.

Play 3. I don't see any possible way this isn't at the least a FF1. He swung and hit the player with is open hand and it was intentional. What if he had a closed fist, would the outcome had been the same? Yes the defender was grabbing his jersey, but still have a swing.

Play 4. Looks like a pretty good call, thought it was a PC live.

Play 5. This one is the one that is most debatable for me. I never see any light go off, the clock says zero, but does it show tenth. It could be 0.05. Lastly, I never hear the horn. Why would they not use red lights?

Play 6. Kaminsky gets LGP, doesn't move, except to firm up, I have a PC.

Once again, just my thoughts.

PLAY 1. I don't really have an excuse here. Seems an obvious oob.

Play 2. I'll admit I probably would've had the same call in full speed. After watching in replay I think the defender was late in getting to the spot before the Wisc. player elevated.

Play 3. Swim move or not-You don't get to hit guys in the face. It looks like a bit of an intentional karate chop to me. FF1

Play 4. From camera angle initially I thought it was a PC. The overhead look and from where lead was, I gotta go block.

Play 5. Based on when I hear the horn, it seems like no shot clock violation. I assume there was still some tenths of a second remaining, but I also never saw any lights on the backboard. Weird.

Play 6. PC

Wouldn't the shot clock hitting zero mean 0.0?

Not necessarily.

It starts at 35 and it's a full second before it hits 34, right?

Also, is the championship game officiating crew made up of the Final Four referees?

It was in another post further down the board, who the championship game is. It is not anyone that was in the Final Four. I remember Stephens, DeRosa, ???

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.

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

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

No, it could mean 0.04

It is reviewable under 2 minutes

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Exactly my thoughts

Yes, I'm alive...
 

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.

Flagrant Foul Rule
 

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

The F1 play is a tough one. You have an open hand and the hit is almost as if he is trying to push him out of the way. However, there is a swing and the contact appears pretty hard. They have a LOT of angles available to them on replay as they are in contact with the producer of the broadcast out in the truck either through the headset or through the liaison at the table. They can ask for any available angle. We do not know what angles they looked at and didn't look at. However, three multiple Final Four officials all decided after review it was not an F1. I am good with that.

As for the shot clock violation. I have been taught to always go by the horn. The shot clock has a different horn than the game clock. At every game they are supposed to have the shot clock turned on and wound down to expiration and to check the shot clock horn. When it is turned on the first number displayed is 34 for men and 29 for women. There is no tenths of a second. In pro arenas where the shot clocks can show tenths of a second, for whatever reason, that feature is to be shut off for the college game. However, the non displayed internal mechanism still counts down in tenths of a second. I saw the 0 but didn't hear the horn. I am good with the no call and counting the basket. Just the showing of 0 doesn't mean shot clock violation.

This is incredibly helpful information. I've struggled to put the rule text regarding F1/F2 into a practical perspective. This is the best explanation I've seen.

Is this official guidance, or something that several vets use? On the attached F2 clip, I only see one of the three. Thoughts?

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

I see impact and follow through on this. For what it's worth I think I would have only gone F1 here.

Then the F1 guidelines need to be firmed up.

How so? How would you word it so that a player who accidentally swipes and pokes the eye of his opponent doesn't get hit with an F1? Or would you like to see that called an F1 as well?

First, this was not incidental or accidental. It was reckless and he's lucky the Wisconsin player wasn't seriously hurt.

Second, yes I would like to see that an F1 as well. Players need to be responsible for contact they initiate, particularly when it's contact to the head and neck area. And a player doesn't accidentally swipe, he may accidentally hit the eye but the swipe itself is intentional.

This guideline came from the NBA...and has filtered it's way down to lower levels.

It's either accidental or intentional. Apparently, the guys watching video thought it was accidental, and then couldn't find another reason to warrant an F1. I agree it was accidental.

Reckless isn't a criteria for F1. Some use it for determining whether it is an F1 or an F2, but there's nothing in the rule that says "reckless" is an F1 if it doesn't meet the other criteria.

I thought it should have been an F1, but I don't think it's an egregious miss.

Exactly. How many men have you ever seen try to hit someone like that?

As APG points out it's not official guidance but, as I said, criteria given to me by those higher on the food chain as to what we should look for. IMO, the clip you posted was an F1 at the most. I can also see where it could have been called a common foul since it was a case of a not-so-big player encountering a bigger player. I can't see it as an F2 given the description of the rule (a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme while the ball is live).

Excessive, yeah. Severe/extreme, nah.


Intent has nothing to do with the F1 rule, which is why NCAA changed the name from "intentional" to "flagrant 1" in the first place. The first line of the NCAA rule reads: "A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act." Even in NFHS it says an IF "may or may not be premeditated."