February 22, 201412 yr Why does the reason matter? It doesn't really... But GT was alluding to the idea that it shouldn't be a technical because you can't call one when you're jumping/falling out of bounds.
February 22, 201412 yr The UC player that attempted to call the TO. He was either already on the ground or very close... Just trying to help clarify on the jumping out of bounds and calling TO debate... Unless my eyes were wrong, it appeared to me he was pulled out by a jersey tug.
February 22, 201412 yr That was one of my first thoughts as well. Even said it to my son. However, when watching the replay the thought hit me that I think that's ONLY if you're airborne. He wasn't. However, I'm not 100% on that one. You may be right. I will check. Checked. The rulebook specifically says it can't be granted when airborne. TO should have been granted to UC with a T given. 2 shots for UL and UC with the ball under their basket.
February 23, 201412 yr When I watched it live and saw the official talking to Mick I assumed he was trying to say that SK landed before he charged. That would have explained to me why he awarded FTs. However, college defines a "player control" foul differently. PC ends as soon as the ball leaves the hands on a shot. So SK did not commit a PC foul. Had the shot gone in it would have counted. FTs were awarded correctly by NCAA rules as far as I can tell. Isn't this virtually impossible given the changes to the charge rule in that a secondary defender can't slide in after the upward motion begins? He slid in so late the shot was already released, right???
February 23, 201412 yr Isn't this virtually impossible given the changes to the charge rule in that a secondary defender can't slide in after the upward motion begins? He slid in so late the shot was already released, right??? I didn't watch the replay to see if he got there in time. I was thinking he based it on something else and was watching for that so I can't answer that. I was only speaking to why the FTs were merited.
February 23, 201412 yr I watched the game from my deck without sound and I didn't understand why UC wasn't granted the TO when Titus called while his feet were clearly on the ground. I guess it was best for UC if they didn't have a TO left.
February 23, 201412 yr I wonder what guidelines refs are giving when going to the monitor. In the NFL it's "keep it what you called unless there's clear evidence...." In real time I thought it bounded off of the UC player's foot. Obviously it bounced off of Russ. I didn't think it hit the UC player's foot when it was rolling.
February 23, 201412 yr I wonder what guidelines refs are giving when going to the monitor. In the NFL it's "keep it what you called unless there's clear evidence...." In real time I thought it bounded off of the UC player's foot. Obviously it bounced off of Russ. I didn't think it hit the UC player's foot when it was rolling. They only showed the angle once or twice, but the ball changed direction.
February 23, 201412 yr They only showed the angle once or twice' date=' but the ball changed direction.[/quote'] In your eyes. Not in mine.
February 23, 201412 yr They only showed the angle once or twice, but the ball changed direction. In your eyes. Not in mine. I'm with Clyde. I saw every angle and saw the corner angle several times that had the clearest view of whether it hit the UC players foot. I did not see the ball change direction.
February 23, 201412 yr I'm with Clyde. I saw every angle and saw the corner angle several times that had the clearest view of whether it hit the UC players foot. I did not see the ball change direction. You couldn't have seen the angle I'm talking about then.
February 23, 201412 yr You couldn't have seen the angle I'm talking about then. I am talking about the angle from the corner that had the clearest view of the ball rolling between the UC players' leg and hand. The ball did not change direction. I watched closely to see if the spin on the ball changed and could not see the spin changing, which would have happened if it touched the UC player. However, I will say that camera angles are not 100% proof. There is still judgment involved. It is just more proof that still has to be viewed and judged. I remember a UK game, I believe it was a key tournament game, a couple years ago where there was a corner 3 point shot being reviewed. They showed several camera angles and in every one it looked like the UK player's toe was on the 3 point line. Then they showed an angle from the baseline that clearly showed his toe was behind the three point line. I would have sworn it was not a 3 point shot after seeing the first few camera angles. When they showed that baseline view, it was obvious it was a 3 pointer. The first 3 or 4 camera angles hurt, more than helped, in trying to decide if it was a 3 pointer.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.