Kansas phantom 3 pointer

[clone52]

I disagree with you about the Shirley double foul. While a double foul may be allowable according to the rules, a double blocking/charging foul is a virtual impossibility under the rulebook. Either the defensive player has established position, or he hasn't. If he has, the correct call is a charge on the offensive player, and no foul should be called on the defender. If he hasn't established position, then the offensive player has "first dibs" to the spot that the defensive player is moving to, and the call should have been a block. It's an either/or situation. Calling a foul on both players means the refs blew it, plain and simple.

What makes it even worse is that they waived off Shirley's basket. Replays show that the ball had clearly left Shirley's hand when the contact occurred. It was obvious in real-time, and it was even more obvious in slow motion. To this day, I think the refs were scared of making a call that would upset the pro-Spartans crowd at the Palace in Auburn Hills, and they destroyed ISU's chances of winning that game as a result.

By rule, those both can't occur at the same time, but the rule is open to interpretation. One ref saw it as a charge and one a block. The call is a tough one, it could go either way. The problem is that both refs made the call simultaneously. They are trained (or should be) to be aware of the other refs and not get into that situation. Once they were in that situation, calling a double foul is the correct course of action.

Here is another example. Two refs call fouls on different sides of the court. It appears as though they are called at the same time. In this case, they would talk and probably decide that one play occurred before the other. If the decided they happened at the same time, both fouls would count, but you'd never see that happen. You would always be able to choose one over the other and justify it by saying that official A heard Official B's whistle right after he made the call. You don't have that argument in a block/charge case. You can't justify it by saying the block happened before the charge.

You'll probably see this situation occur on lower levels much more often. One ref calling a block and one a charge. I've done it before and one of the things I really work on is making eye contact with the other refs in a play like that. I just raise my hand and can wait a few seconds to call a block or a charge. What probably happens when both are called on the lower levels (middle school and high school for me) is that the refs will talk and decide on one or the other. Thats probably not the right thing to do according to the rules.

Regarding the shot counting, I don't remember that so I'll trust your recollection. Funny thing about that game is I remember the experience, we had friends over, moved an extra TV into another room since we didn't all have room to watch on the main TV. I don't remember the specifics of the game other other than recollections of this call and highlights of the tirade. I haven't rewatched it and don't remember much else.

[cyclonepower]

Didnt we get a phantom point against NW State in Maui 2 yrs ago? And won the game in OT?

[BvK1126]

Didnt we get a phantom point against NW State in Maui 2 yrs ago? And won the game in OT?

Sshhhhh! That situation was completely different... because... umm... Iowa State won the game...

[pcyclonatrist]

By rule, those both can't occur at the same time, but the rule is open to interpretation. One ref saw it as a charge and one a block. The call is a tough one, it could go either way. The problem is that both refs made the call simultaneously. They are trained (or should be) to be aware of the other refs and not get into that situation. Once they were in that situation, calling a double foul is the correct course of action.

I think it is possible to have a play where one ref believes that the defensive player blocked and another ref believes that the offensive player charged. The solution to this conundrum is to have an explicit rule for this situation. We can assume, since the refs were divided in their judgment, it is likely that, in fact, no foul occurred on the play. Therefore, the rule should be that in this case, no foul is called and any points scored on the play will count, since no foul occurred.

I believe this is a reasonable solution and would be acceptable to the refs, the coaches, the players and the fans.

[clone52]

I think it is possible to have a play where one ref believes that the defensive player blocked and another ref believes that the offensive player charged. The solution to this conundrum is to have an explicit rule for this situation. We can assume, since the refs were divided in their judgment, it is likely that, in fact, no foul occurred on the play. Therefore, the rule should be that in this case, no foul is called and any points scored on the play will count, since no foul occurred.

I believe this is a reasonable solution and would be acceptable to the refs, the coaches, the players and the fans.

I appreciate the suggestion, but I think that is a silly idea. How is it possibly likely that no foul occured on the play? Two refs saw a foul. If no whistle was blown initially, fans would be made at times to. Lets say that is the case and a whistle is blown, but you can't tell who had possession? How do you determine if a shot should count? The rules for a shot counting on a charge are different from that of a block.

[pcyclonatrist]

I appreciate the suggestion, but I think that is a silly idea. How is it possibly likely that no foul occured on the play? Two refs saw a foul. If no whistle was blown initially, fans would be made at times to. Lets say that is the case and a whistle is blown, but you can't tell who had possession? How do you determine if a shot should count? The rules for a shot counting on a charge are different from that of a block.

Have you ever heard of the saying: "No harm, no foul"? I have.

Have you ever seen a play where an offensive player and a defensive player apparently violently collide but no foul is called? I have, many times.

Have you ever seen a replay of a "no foul" play which shows that one or both players were "demonstrating their thespian talent" and the "no foul" decision was correct? I have, many times.

My point is that if one ref sees a charge and another ref sees a block, it is quite likely that there wasn't much of a charge or a block on the play. At the very least, there is a serious amount of disagreement among the refs. So why penalize both teams in this situation? Why put two players one foul closer to being out of the game on a call that was too close to call?

And if you don't call a foul you have to count any points which would have counted absent a foul call.

As for the fans, maybe I'm crazy, but I think the average fan gets much angrier at a bad call than at a no call. I know I do.

So no, I don't think it's a silly idea.

[Jarrods79]

It was Vroman who was at the line at the time of the phantom 3 I believe

That stuff should never be allowed to happen, period. Ball is dead regardless if there was a lack of whistle blowing because they signaled 2 free-throws before the shots.

[psycln11]

It was Vroman who was at the line at the time of the phantom 3 I believe

Nope...It was Homan. (See my link on page 1 of this thread.)

[clones_jer]

Have you ever heard of the saying: "No harm, no foul"? I have.

Have you ever seen a play where an offensive player and a defensive player apparently violently collide but no foul is called? I have, many times.

Have you ever seen a replay of a "no foul" play which shows that one or both players were "demonstrating their thespian talent" and the "no foul" decision was correct? I have, many times.

My point is that if one ref sees a charge and another ref sees a block, it is quite likely that there wasn't much of a charge or a block on the play. At the very least, there is a serious amount of disagreement among the refs. So why penalize both teams in this situation? Why put two players one foul closer to being out of the game on a call that was too close to call?

And if you don't call a foul you have to count any points which would have counted absent a foul call.

As for the fans, maybe I'm crazy, but I think the average fan gets much angrier at a bad call than at a no call. I know I do.

So no, I don't think it's a silly idea.

If there was enough contact that 2 officials called it - something has to happen. Totally agree with clone52 that this situation is avoidable and should never occur with the "experiance" that the NCAAs should provide. How does the NCAA pick refs for hte tourney? Is it possible individuals are picked and then assigned to teams or are they picked as teams? On the crazy notion that it's individuals that don't normally work together I could see stuff like this happening.

Both situations should never happen in the regular season of a middle school program, much less the NCAA tournament. Carelessness.

[clone52]

Have you ever heard of the saying: "No harm, no foul"? I have.

Have you ever seen a play where an offensive player and a defensive player apparently violently collide but no foul is called? I have, many times.

Have you ever seen a replay of a "no foul" play which shows that one or both players were "demonstrating their thespian talent" and the "no foul" decision was correct? I have, many times.

My point is that if one ref sees a charge and another ref sees a block, it is quite likely that there wasn't much of a charge or a block on the play. At the very least, there is a serious amount of disagreement among the refs. So why penalize both teams in this situation? Why put two players one foul closer to being out of the game on a call that was too close to call?

And if you don't call a foul you have to count any points which would have counted absent a foul call.

As for the fans, maybe I'm crazy, but I think the average fan gets much angrier at a bad call than at a no call. I know I do.

So no, I don't think it's a silly idea.

Could a guy take a couple dribbles after the whistle to score? Who gets the ball if the shot is missed?

What if the ball rolls out of bounds? Give it to the team it went out of bounds on? That is a bad idea. What if the Team A loses the handle and the ball bounces away. Another Team A player clearly could pick up the ball, but since he hears the whistle he stops playing and lets the ball roll out of bounds. What if Team B grabs it before it goes out of bounds after the whistle, would they get the ball? If a shot is not made, is it a jump ball everytime?

The logic in saying that if one ref saw a charge and one saw a block, that there was probably no foul kind of boggles my mind. Two out of 3 refs saw a foul. Most of the controversial charge/block calls just come down to determing whether the defense had position or not. Its a pretty subjective call. From one angle, it may look like he had position. From another angle, it may look like he did not. I think pretending that there is no foul when 2 refs

[Cyphor]

I don't see why this shouldn't be a "correctable" call.

Suggestion NCAA,
Please make basketball games idot proof so if a ref blows a call like this it dosn't cost one team a victory. It's too bad Universities can't fine or sue the NCAA for being a compleat dumb-*** on this subject.

[clones_jer]

I don't see why this shouldn't be a "correctable" call.

Suggestion NCAA,
Please make basketball games idot proof so if a ref blows a call like this it dosn't cost one team a victory. It's too bad Universities can't fine or sue the NCAA for being a compleat dumb-*** on this subject.

PLEASE tell me those mispellings were intended, such compleat idots!!

[kgreeny]

MSU call is so much worse for ISU because had that been a no call or a block, we are the NATIONAL CHAMPS!!! They took it away from us.

[pcyclonatrist]

Could a guy take a couple dribbles after the whistle to score? Who gets the ball if the shot is missed?

What if the ball rolls out of bounds? Give it to the team it went out of bounds on? That is a bad idea. What if the Team A loses the handle and the ball bounces away. Another Team A player clearly could pick up the ball, but since he hears the whistle he stops playing and lets the ball roll out of bounds. What if Team B grabs it before it goes out of bounds after the whistle, would they get the ball? If a shot is not made, is it a jump ball everytime?[/QUOTE]

Decide all of these questions as if you had an unintentional whistle.

The logic in saying that if one ref saw a charge and one saw a block, that there was probably no foul kind of boggles my mind. Two out of 3 refs saw a foul. Most of the controversial charge/block calls just come down to determing whether the defense had position or not. Its a pretty subjective call. From one angle, it may look like he had position. From another angle, it may look like he did not. I think pretending that there is no foul when 2 refs

You haven't addressed my point regarding the fouls assessed to each player. Why do you want to give at leastone player a foul he doesn't deserve? (Not to mention giving at least one team a foul it doesn't deserve.) This could have a very big impact on the outcome of the game. (I'm assuming you agree that theoretically it should be impossible to actually have both a charge and a block simultaneously, regardless of what is called. They seem to be mutually exclusive fouls. Thus calling both simultaneously means that at least one ref was wrong.) Intentionally giving a player a foul when he didn't commit a foul boggles my mind. Intentionally not giving a player a foul because your not sure he actually committed a foul does not boggle my mind.

[el tornado]

That was the worst slap in the face EVER to a Division I team that I can remember, and of course it was Iowa State.
Two shots for Homan, he misses first, KU runs down the court hits the shot. Then they let Homan shoot the second free throw! Wayne Morgan just looks dazed. Bill Self says it was correct. Bill Selfish. My least favorite coach of all time. So happy when KU chokes in the NCAA's.

I still think we should try that against KU in Hilton some day and see what happens!!!