HOLY SH@?!

[UNTLifer]

I had to record the game and ignore my phone until now due to a prior commitment. What a comeback. I thought the offensive foul on Perry, kick out, was a game changer and complete bullshit. Curling off a screen, some times you have to do that to stop your body rotation and square up for your shot. The officials let Wisconsin’s coach get in their ear, and the ln the announcers, who I thought called a good game, were in agreement. Terrible call, but we kept grinding and pulled it out when we really didn’t shoot well or handle the ball well. Love this team. 

[tmjerm]

1 minute ago, UNTLifer said:

I had to record the game and ignore my phone until now due to a prior commitment. What a comeback. I thought the offensive foul on Perry, kick out, was a game changer and complete bullshit. Curling off a screen, some times you have to do that to stop your body rotation and square up for your shot. The officials let Wisconsin’s coach get in their ear, and the ln the announcers, who I thought called a good game, were in agreement. Terrible call, but we kept grinding and pulled it out when we really didn’t shoot well or handle the ball well. Love this team. 

Amen, couldn’t love these guys more.  

[Andrew]

6 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

I had to record the game and ignore my phone until now due to a prior commitment. What a comeback. I thought the offensive foul on Perry, kick out, was a game changer and complete bullshit. Curling off a screen, some times you have to do that to stop your body rotation and square up for your shot. The officials let Wisconsin’s coach get in their ear, and the ln the announcers, who I thought called a good game, were in agreement. Terrible call, but we kept grinding and pulled it out when we really didn’t shoot well or handle the ball well. Love this team. 

Welcome to the excitement. 

[Jonnyeagle]

5 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

I had to record the game and ignore my phone until now due to a prior commitment. What a comeback. I thought the offensive foul on Perry, kick out, was a game changer and complete bullshit. Curling off a screen, some times you have to do that to stop your body rotation and square up for your shot. The officials let Wisconsin’s coach get in their ear, and the ln the announcers, who I thought called a good game, were in agreement. Terrible call, but we kept grinding and pulled it out when we really didn’t shoot well or handle the ball well. Love this team. 

God bless you @UNTLifer you have been so supportive of this program.  I am happy for all of us.

[UNTLifer]

I doubled up tonight. UNT green hoodie over UNT t-shirt. 

[wardly]

13 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

I had to record the game and ignore my phone until now due to a prior commitment. What a comeback. I thought the offensive foul on Perry, kick out, was a game changer and complete bullshit. Curling off a screen, some times you have to do that to stop your body rotation and square up for your shot. The officials let Wisconsin’s coach get in their ear, and the ln the announcers, who I thought called a good game, were in agreement. Terrible call, but we kept grinding and pulled it out when we really didn’t shoot well or handle the ball well. Love this team. 

Has anyone ever seen this called before? I'm 80, watched a fare amount of hoops in my day, and don't remember ever seeing this called.

[CMJ]

2 minutes ago, wardly said:

Has anyone ever seen this called before? I'm 80, watched a fare amount of hoops in my day, and don't remember ever seeing this called.

I have, but only when the shooter has thrown their leg out much more than Perry did.

[Big Z]

 

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, wardly said:

Has anyone ever seen this called before? I'm 80, watched a fare amount of hoops in my day, and don't remember ever seeing this called.

Never heard of the call until that moment, and once I processed what it was supposed to be, I found myself very frustrated about TPs call.  I will go to my grave believe he was just going through a reasonable shooting motion.  Defender closed the gap and his leg hit TP's foot.

The PxP calling it legitimate is complete horse poo.

[TIgreen01]

Jelly Walker did this OVER and OVER and OVER again on us in Frisco---clearly purposefully, and the refs gave him the call at least 3 times in that game alone.  To then see TP get called for it on a pretty innocuous kick-out was a slap in the face.  I know the crews are different, but seeing the complete opposite calls being made in our games about 2 weeks apart really makes it stand out and infuriating.

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, wardly said:

Has anyone ever seen this called before? I'm 80, watched a fare amount of hoops in my day, and don't remember ever seeing this called.

There has been a push in recent years to allow defenders the ability to defend if they're in a legitimate and established defensive position prior to an offensive player entering a shooting motion.

One of the more commonly seen changes was trying to eliminate the foul when an offensive player rakes his arms through the defenders arms when going up for a shot. At the NBA level, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, and James Harden were notorious for this. The NBA specifically has attempted to limit this call as to not reward "foul-baiting."

The kickout rule, known as the Reggie Miller rule, has been a focus of officials to prevent shooters from  excessively and intentionally kicking out their legs to initiate contact with a defender thus giving them the opportunity for free throws when the defender did nothing but exist where he was permitted to be. Last night's call against TP was not in-line with the spirit of the rule and nearly cost UNT the game as it halted all momentum. Perry only had 2 points after that BS call and thwarted what was on the way to being an I credible performance.

Edited March 29, 2023 by GMG_Dallas

[NT93]

Let’s pretend for a moment that the official made the correct call (I know, it’s hard to do since it was so bad).  In my opinion, the points shouldn’t be taken off the board if the shot is made.  Give him the foul and don’t give him the free throw, but the basket should still count.

[meaniegreenie]

36 minutes ago, NT93 said:

Let’s pretend for a moment that the official made the correct call (I know, it’s hard to do since it was so bad).  In my opinion, the points shouldn’t be taken off the board if the shot is made.  Give him the foul and don’t give him the free throw, but the basket should still count.

Yeah, this is being treated the same as a charging foul.  However, this foul is essentially "post-shot", so you argument has merit.

[GMG_Dallas]

51 minutes ago, NT93 said:

Let’s pretend for a moment that the official made the correct call (I know, it’s hard to do since it was so bad).  In my opinion, the points shouldn’t be taken off the board if the shot is made.  Give him the foul and don’t give him the free throw, but the basket should still count.

 

13 minutes ago, meaniegreenie said:

Yeah, this is being treated the same as a charging foul.  However, this foul is essentially "post-shot", so you argument has merit.

I'll disagree for the simple reason that a foul is either during the shot or not.

If a defender is called for a foul for being in the shooter's landing zone, it's considered altering the shot because the offensive player can't properly complete his follow through. That foul is a shooting foul and results in free throws. That foul occurs at the same stage of a complete shot attempt as the kickout so it has to be treated the same in that it gives the offensive player an advantage during the shot because it affects the defender's ability to properly contest the shot. If one is changed, both have to be changed.

Game rules are best when the gray area is limited. If refs were to have to determine at what stage of a shot a foul occurrs to determine whether or not there are free throws or a shot counts, we're going to end up with an absolutely horrible rule. This is why football is the way it is with all the "bang bang plays." I'd like to keep that term out of basketball.

[Censored by Laurie]

31 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

 

I'll disagree for the simple reason that a foul is either during the shot or not.

If a defender is called for a foul for being in the shooter's landing zone, it's considered altering the shot because the offensive player can't properly complete his follow through. That foul is a shooting foul and results in free throws. That foul occurs at the same stage of a complete shot attempt as the kickout so it has to be treated the same in that it gives the offensive player an advantage during the shot because it affects the defender's ability to properly contest the shot. If one is changed, both have to be changed.

Game rules are best when the gray area is limited. If refs were to have to determine at what stage of a shot a foul occurrs to determine whether or not there are free throws or a shot counts, we're going to end up with an absolutely horrible rule. This is why football is the way it is with all the "bang bang plays." I'd like to keep that term out of basketball.

this is spot on. changing the rule to make an intentional/seeking contact leg kick a charge is a good rule because it's the counter-weight to an equally good and way overdue rule of ensuring a shooter has clear and safe landing area. without the charge rule in place, shooters would even more take advantage and kick out even more intentionally. 

to think that TP's leg kick out was seeking contact though is to have zero understanding of basketball physics and maybe a decent indicator why Coach Fran hasn't coached a team since 2002. 

Jelly actually had damn near the exact situation in the second half of their game...right-hand curl into a catch-and-shoot and had the same for-balance leg extension go rightfully uncalled and Fran said it should've been a foul. yet another reminder as to why ESPN is awful.

I'm still wanting clarification on what happened on the 6 point Hepburn possession. unless the rule has been changed (and there are experimental rules in the NIT), in my recollection of the rule what should've happened was Hepburn's 3 should count and whoever Scott fouled, probably Wahl, should've had one free throw (which, clearly, he'd miss...)

if that is a changed rule...to count the bucket and give back possession...it's awful. the only other scenarios where a team can potentially score 6 points without a return possession are a flagrant and a technical. no way does a loose-ball fould merit such a potential punishment. 

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

this is spot on. changing the rule to make an intentional/seeking contact leg kick a charge is a good rule because it's the counter-weight to an equally good and way overdue rule of ensuring a shooter has clear and safe landing area. without the charge rule in place, shooters would even more take advantage and kick out even more intentionally. 

to think that TP's leg kick out was seeking contact though is to have zero understanding of basketball physics and maybe a decent indicator why Coach Fran hasn't coached a team since 2002. 

Jelly actually had damn near the exact situation in the second half of their game...right-hand curl into a catch-and-shoot and had the same for-balance leg extension go rightfully uncalled and Fran said it should've been a foul. yet another reminder as to why ESPN is awful.

I'm still wanting clarification on what happened on the 6 point Hepburn possession. unless the rule has been changed (and there are experimental rules in the NIT), in my recollection of the rule what should've happened was Hepburn's 3 should count and whoever Scott fouled, probably Wahl, should've had one free throw (which, clearly, he'd miss...)

if that is a changed rule...to count the bucket and give back possession...it's awful. the only other scenarios where a team can potentially score 6 points without a return possession are a flagrant and a technical. no way does a loose-ball fould merit such a potential punishment. 

The foul on TP was a horrible call. Should have never happened and it really affected the game. Just because it was a bad call, doesn't mean rules should be changed to meet the desired outcome. My hope is it was reviewed with the refs and that's the end of it for now. Human error is part of the game. The ESPN crews have been ill prepared. Nothing new with that has been coach.

Regarding that loose ball foul, the only explanation I can think of is that a new experimental rule was in place. I've never seen a loose ball foul result in an extra possession if a basket was counted. It's either before the shot, no basket, shot clock reset to 20 if under 19 when foul was committed, team retains possession or foul occurred during the shot, count the basket, fouled player shoots 1 free throw, possession is over and the other team gets the ball (unless the FT is missed). I've yet to find any explanation anywhere but there also wasn't outrage by any of the coaches which makes me think it's a new rule they're trying out.

Edited March 29, 2023 by GMG_Dallas

[emmitt01]

This entire thread is funny to me and why we will never be a big-time program.  
 

The responses are too reasoned and coherent.  To reach the big time we’ll need to lower that standard to “my team should have won because we is (insert P5 school) and we are ‘big time’”  

[Jonnyeagle]

1 hour ago, GMG_Dallas said:

The foul on TP was a horrible call.

It was a very bad call and I think TP was very mature not to allow himself to get a technjcal.

[GMG_Dallas]

45 minutes ago, Jonnyeagle said:

It was a very bad call and I think TP was very mature not to allow himself to get a technjcal.

He handled that BS great as usual.

[NT93]

6 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

 

I'll disagree for the simple reason that a foul is either during the shot or not.

If a defender is called for a foul for being in the shooter's landing zone, it's considered altering the shot because the offensive player can't properly complete his follow through. That foul is a shooting foul and results in free throws. That foul occurs at the same stage of a complete shot attempt as the kickout so it has to be treated the same in that it gives the offensive player an advantage during the shot because it affects the defender's ability to properly contest the shot. If one is changed, both have to be changed.

Game rules are best when the gray area is limited. If refs were to have to determine at what stage of a shot a foul occurrs to determine whether or not there are free throws or a shot counts, we're going to end up with an absolutely horrible rule. This is why football is the way it is with all the "bang bang plays." I'd like to keep that term out of basketball.

You’re correct. 
 

My post was mostly knee-jerk and wasn’t really intended to question the rules of the game.

That being said and after a little time to cool down and think about it, I guess it comes down to the fact that I disagree with the rule.  If a player, (let’s call him Jelly) kicks out his leg to draw a foul, don’t call a foul.  Seems like the perfect place for a no call.  @Censored by Laurie mentioned that this is the counter to the flop, and I understand that and agree to a point.  I just think if a shooter is kicking out his leg trying to draw a foul he is probably affecting his own shot in a negative way.  A defender flopping is taking himself out of the play which should punishment enough.

Both are judgement calls that can’t be reviewed, so you’re at the mercy of the official either way.  I guess I just prefer a no call on both a flop and a leg kick.