Most disgsting thing I've ever seen (KU)

[skyvue]

My guess is that an official might have thought there was something there, but passed on what he perceived as no contact. Self brings it up and because the official knows something might be there, they pretty much have to take a look at that point. If for some reason there was contact, it wasn't called or not reviewed, that crew will be in deep poop with their superiors (i.e. being removed from future games). Contact above the shoulders is really stressed these days, even though I think the rule is a bit excessive.

Sitting in the stands or at home, it is easy to question the validity of the review given the timing, but it was the right call.

The review still should have come after the second free throw. Nothing was gained by doing it before except to ice Cam (which may have been part of Self's motivation in asking for the review).

 

[campbest]

The review still should have come after the second free throw. Nothing was gained by doing it before except to ice Cam (which may have been part of Self's motivation in asking for the review).

Sorry, this one is another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by campbest
That's not how the rule works. In order for your scenario to work, KU could only call the timeout after some time had elapsed if Clark misses the FT. At that point, the prior play is void due to elapsed time on the game clock and no review is conducted.

It should have been reviewed before the first free throw, but depending on when it was brought up, before the second is acceptable.

 

[Big Old Booger]

My guess is that an official might have thought there was something there, but passed on what he perceived as no contact. Self brings it up and because the official knows something might be there, they pretty much have to take a look at that point. If for some reason there was contact, it wasn't called or not reviewed, that crew will be in deep poop with their superiors (i.e. being removed from future games). Contact above the shoulders is really stressed these days, even though I think the rule is a bit excessive.

Sitting in the stands or at home, it is easy to question the validity of the review given the timing, but it was the right call.

Your KU fandom is really starting to show itself in this thread... :ez-laugh:

 

[skyvue]

It should have been reviewed before the first free throw, but depending on when it was brought up, before the second is acceptable.

Acceptable to you, perhaps, but not to me or to most impartial observers, I'm guessing. King Bill could have waited another 30 seconds for his review.

Given that I've never seen a two-shot trip to the line interrupted in this way, "acceptable" is not the term I'd use to describe it.

 

[WTSooner]

Acceptable to you, perhaps, but not to me or to most impartial observers, I'm guessing. King Bill could have waited another 30 seconds for his review.

Given that I've never seen a two-shot trip to the line interrupted in this way, "acceptable" is not the term I'd use to describe it.

Umm.....no, he couldn't have waited. Because had Cam missed the second FT, and the ball was then in play, he'd have missed his chance.

 

[campbest]

Your rules of basketball knowledge is really starting to show itself in this thread.

Thanks B.O.B.!!

 

[Big Old Booger]

Thanks B.O.B.!!

I see what you did there. :ez-laugh:

 

[skyvue]

Umm.....no, he couldn't have waited. Because had Cam missed the second FT, and the ball was then in play, he'd have missed his chance.

Good point.

Then the rule needs to change. The review must be requested before the first free throw. Otherwise, the coach can make a bogus review request in order to ice the player going to the line. I'm not convinced that's not what Self was up to on Saturday.

 

[badger]

It is time for KU's stranglehold on Big 12 hoops to end. I hope that it's us that dethrones them, but if not, I would also be happy with "anybody but ku"

 

[stoops4pres]

I see what you did there. :ez-laugh:

If you think researching the rules for the sole purpose of arguing with OU fans about his beloved Jayhawks is bad, you should have talked to campbest on Saturday after OU prevailed... He was so pissed that KU lost.

 

[Max Power]

If you think researching the rules for the sole purpose of arguing with OU fans about his beloved Jayhawks is bad, you should have talked to campbest on Saturday after OU prevailed... He was so pissed that KU lost.

Its cool, he can celebrate justin biebers grammy appearance

 

[opsooner]

lol, come on man.

As WT said and I did in another thread, this type of thing is allowed by rule. It wasn't Self or the officials' error, just following the rules passed down by the committee, who oddly enough, the coaches sit on.

And it's not a problem because it happened between two OU free throws...until the ball is in-bounded or team possession has changed, then it becomes an issue.

I said it could challenged. Did you even read what I said? Perhaps time for a trip to the eye doctor?

Also, the part you had highlighted is just an opinion of what I think they were doing. I didn't say it was illegal.

 

[tycat947]

It is time for KU's stranglehold on Big 12 hoops to end. I hope that it's us that dethrones them, but if not, I would also be happy with "anybody but ku"

:clap

It will happen....it WILL happen!!!

 

[opsooner]

Officials and Their Duties. 2-13.2.d.1.b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team

 

[skyvue]

when no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team except when the team in question is kansas

fify

 

[KCRuf/Nek]

Officials and Their Duties. 2-13.2.d.1.b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team

KU was out of timeouts. Guess assessing a technical foul wasn't in the picture?

 

[campbest]

I said it could challenged. Did you even read what I said? Perhaps time for a trip to the eye doctor?

Also, the part you had highlighted is just an opinion of what I think they were doing. I didn't say it was illegal.

Fully aware, that is why I was laughing at it. Would have been the most flawlessly executed plan in the history of basketball. Also, was only referencing the bold section, rest was aimed at the general nature of the thread. Will try harder to dumb it down next time.

Officials and Their Duties. 2-13.2.d.1.b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team

Did it say anything about being out of timeouts? The assumption would be since they were out a tech should have been give, but if it doesn't say specifically for this provision, it may not be warranted. I don't know.

 

[opsooner]

Fully aware, that is why I was laughing at it. Would have been the most flawlessly executed plan in the history of basketball. Also, was only referencing the bold section, rest was aimed at the general nature of the thread. Will try harder to dumb it down next time.



Did it say anything about being out of timeouts? The assumption would be since they were out a tech should have been give, but if it doesn't say specifically for this provision, it may not be warranted. I don't know.

Sorry, perhaps a writing lesson is needed over the reading glasses? We both agree that it did not work so it could be taken either way. :ez-laugh:

As far as a technical, I am still not sure. I did find this on the NCAA site:

The committee is recommending that coaches can request a monitor review of Flagrant 2 fouls by officials at any time during a game. If the replay shows that the coach was wrong, his team is charged a timeout. If the team has no more timeouts, the team is assessed a technical foul for taking too many timeouts. Officials continue to be able to go to the monitor to check these fouls without a request from the coach.

Now, this said Flagrant 2 but I think either can be challenged. Anyway, the language is not clear on this so I am not sure of the exact rule.

 

[luckyc1423]

Sorry, perhaps a writing lesson is needed over the reading glasses? We both agree that it did not work so it could be taken either way. :ez-laugh:

As far as a technical, I am still not sure. I did find this on the NCAA site:

The committee is recommending that coaches can request a monitor review of Flagrant 2 fouls by officials at any time during a game. If the replay shows that the coach was wrong, his team is charged a timeout. If the team has no more timeouts, the team is assessed a technical foul for taking too many timeouts. Officials continue to be able to go to the monitor to check these fouls without a request from the coach.

Now, this said Flagrant 2 but I think either can be challenged. Anyway, the language is not clear on this so I am not sure of the exact rule.

Bazinga! lol.

 

[Big Old Booger]

I just emailed Berry Tramel and he said it should have been a technical.

FYI...