So, was the foul call on Ku's guard correct or not ...

Hoiball92

Active Member
Apr 23, 2015
3,726
11
38
33
Des Moines
I compare it to a loose ball where refs basically allow a free for all dog pile and end up calling a jump ball half the time. There should be a foul on someone, but it's almost never called, so why call it at a crucial time at the end of a game when you won't call it any other time?
A player diving into another played legs causing him to fall ove rarely happens
 

Doc

This is it Morty
Aug 6, 2006
37,437
21,963
113
Denver
The folks at Phog.Net seem to think it was a foul, and I always defer to their mastery of what is a foul and what is not.
 

Mtowncyclone13

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2012
20,023
9,769
113
grundy center
I compare it to a loose ball where refs basically allow a free for all dog pile and end up calling a jump ball half the time. There should be a foul on someone, but it's almost never called, so why call it at a crucial time at the end of a game when you won't call it any other time?

Because Graham took out a guy who wasn't in the scrum. Seriously. Have burton or someone lose control, hack the knees, and claim it's incidental? We'd win evrry game.
 

CNECloneFan

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2012
21,808
2,155
113
That looked like a baseball player breaking up a double play. It was a foul.

Very different than 2 or more players (on the floor) struggling for control of the ball.

Besides, calls like that don't affect the outcome of the game, do they, Kansas?
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
26,756
31,116
113
Behind you
Rule book being misinterpreted by many people on the internet. It is not what the rule book says. Rule book covers incidental contact like a person going into a pile for the ball. When a player undercuts another player, that is not incidental and is a foul.


This. The rule a lot of people were pointing to regarding loose balls says "unintentional" contact is allowed no matter how severe. But there's no way you could say the KU kid diving into the Nova kid's legs was "unintentional". The Nova player was standing right in front of him reaching down for the ball, and the KU player dove and slid into his legs. Nothing unintentional about that contact. Not saying the KU kid was trying to hurt him or take him out, but he had to have known his diving at the ball would initiate contact. That kills the "unintentional" aspect of the rule.
 

HoopsTournament

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 12, 2006
7,844
4,983
113
53
St. Joseph, MO
www.hoopstournament.net
No one said that. But you ARE allowed to dive for the ball with incidental contact being made on the opponent without being called for a foul. So long as, in the official's judgement, you aren't intentionally trying to take down the other player.
You are correct, but Graham's contact with Hart was not incidental. He undercut him. How is that incidental?
 

surly

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2013
9,690
4,088
113
reservation lake, mn
Thanks for all the comments. When I saw it happen live, I knew it was a foul. And then, I was surprised when whats-his-name said it should have been a 'play on.' Clearly, there's no consensus here, so now I feel better.
 

rholtgraves

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,201
6,751
113
It wasn't a foul. The red closest didn't call anything. That's why the refs were talking things over bc the idiot who called it had to explain himself. Graham also got hit on the arm and that's the reason he lost the ball. There is some horrible officiating going on throughout the tournament.
 

rholtgraves

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,201
6,751
113
It also wouldn't have been a travel because he was on the ground when he got the ball.
 

rholtgraves

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,201
6,751
113
This. The rule a lot of people were pointing to regarding loose balls says "unintentional" contact is allowed no matter how severe. But there's no way you could say the KU kid diving into the Nova kid's legs was "unintentional". The Nova player was standing right in front of him reaching down for the ball, and the KU player dove and slid into his legs. Nothing unintentional about that contact. Not saying the KU kid was trying to hurt him or take him out, but he had to have known his diving at the ball would initiate contact. That kills the "unintentional" aspect of the rule.

Sorry but you must not know what unintentional contact means
 

Hoiball92

Active Member
Apr 23, 2015
3,726
11
38
33
Des Moines
It wasn't a foul. The red closest didn't call anything. That's why the refs were talking things over bc the idiot who called it had to explain himself. Graham also got hit on the arm and that's the reason he lost the ball. There is some horrible officiating going on throughout the tournament.
It was a foul.
 

BuffettClone

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
2,633
1,925
113
Honest question since I'm definitely not a ref, but what's the difference between that play where Graham takes a guy's legs out who is reaching for the loose ball and a play where one guy is going for a rebound and another obviously displaces his body position going for the loose rebound?

The second situation is going to be called a foul most times and not really questioned, but the first situation is being disputed. They are both cases of one player displacing another going for an uncontrolled ball.
 

ruxCYtable

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 29, 2007
7,371
4,373
113
Colorado
He didn't go through his legs. He inadvertently tripped him while diving on a loose ball. Unintentional contact during a loose ball is to be ignored by rule. If he dives through someone's legs to go for the ball, that is not unintentional, he knew what he was doing. The trip was an inadvertent result of diving on the ball and, therefore, unintentional. I would not have made that call at ANY point in the game, let alone the point it was made, and let alone it being the player's 5th foul.

And to the people saying it doesn't matter because he travelled, he didn't. Diving on a loose ball and sliding with it is not travelling. It is only travelling if he tries to get up without starting a dribble or rolls over with the ball after completing his slide.
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
26,756
31,116
113
Behind you
He didn't go through his legs. He inadvertently tripped him while diving on a loose ball. Unintentional contact during a loose ball is to be ignored by rule. If he dives through someone's legs to go for the ball, that is not unintentional, he knew what he was doing. The trip was an inadvertent result of diving on the ball and, therefore, unintentional. I would not have made that call at ANY point in the game, let alone the point it was made, and let alone it being the player's 5th foul.

And to the people saying it doesn't matter because he travelled, he didn't. Diving on a loose ball and sliding with it is not travelling. It is only travelling if he tries to get up without starting a dribble or rolls over with the ball after completing his slide.

He dove into the guy and took his leg out. The Nova guy was right in front of him in plain view. Unless the KU player assumed the laws of physics ceased to exist on that court, there's no way you could argue the contact was unintentional.
 

ruxCYtable

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 29, 2007
7,371
4,373
113
Colorado
He dove into the guy and took his leg out. The Nova guy was right in front of him in plain view. Unless the KU player assumed the laws of physics ceased to exist on that court, there's no way you could argue the contact was unintentional.
No he didn't. He dove onto the ball an inadvertently took the guys leg out. I hate KU, but that was a ******** call.
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,248
61,931
113
Ames
He dove into the guy and took his leg out. The Nova guy was right in front of him in plain view. Unless the KU player assumed the laws of physics ceased to exist on that court, there's no way you could argue the contact was unintentional.
You're going with the theory that Graham dove to take out the player rather than diving for the loose ball and running into the player in the process?
 

Clark

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2009
18,452
4,716
113
Altoona
When an offensive player initiates contact, it's an offensive foul? How come there aren't 50 offensive fouls every game then?

the same reason they don't call a foul every time a defensive player initiates contact, or why they don't call every travel or carrying violation; the games would take forever.