Foul or no foul?

[A Clockwork Orange]

I hate having to talk about this crap, but there are some really uneducated fans out there in regards to what is and is not a foul in college basketball.

Jabari Parker's elbow to Rak = foul. Yes, Rak flailed, but you cannot lead with your elbow to clear out a player. It's in the rules. Was it a foul 10 years ago? No. Is it a foul now? Yes. Rak had established position, and Parker intiated contact with his elbow. If Rak's arm had been up and it had hit his chest first, would that have made it "look" more like a foul? It's a foul either way. If Rak had flopped after being hit, and fell over I think Duke fans would have thought it was a foul, since they're so used to that.

Amile Jefferson's 4th foul = yes, it is a foul. It's a ticky tack one, but by the letter of the law it's a foul. Do they always call that? No they don't, so I could see being upset.

Rak's block of Hood = NOT A FOUL. Folks, this is simple. He got the ball before Hood's momentum took him into Rak. Ball before incidental contact means no foul. Here's a screen cap I took that shows it's not a foul. Their arms are clearly separated when Rak gets his hand on the ball:

Finally -- to really put this to bed. At 14:57 in the second half Jabari Parker gets the ball on the break, makes a nice move to the hoop and is blocked by Rak. It's essentially the SAME EXACT PLAY as the one above. Rak got ball and then they hit arms (momentum and all that). It was not a foul, and Dukie V. actually praised the play by Rak.

If I can find that play I will edit this post with a screen cap to show the play. Point is, they don't call that if you have made the basketball play before there is contact.

This was a GREAT college basketball game, and using a non-foul at the end of the game to complain about being robbed, or for some so-called Syracuse fans to claim that the refs were in our pocket last night sullies how good the game actually was.

IT WASN'T A FOUL. You know how I know you don't know basketball? When you complain about what an awful foul that was.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Agreed, agreed, agreed. Look at Rak and how perfectly straight up and down he is as well in that capture. Hood was the one who initiated any contact after the block. Not a foul and I'm glad they called it right.

 

[GoSU96]

Rak's arm was underneath Hood's on the contact, the block itself was all ball.

 

[FreakTalksAboutSU]

I'm willing to concede that Jefferson' s 4th was BUT agree otherwise.

 

[Scooch]

That last XMas block was 100% not a foul. If they called that I'd be furious.

And you know what, when you shoot 35 threes to the other teams 4 you are begging to have a wide foul discrepancy. Duke got exactly what they wanted.

 

[SUalldway]

I hate having to talk about this crap, but there are some really uneducated fans out there in regards to what is and is not a foul in college basketball.

Jabari Parker's elbow to Rak = foul. Yes, Rak flailed, but you cannot lead with your elbow to clear out a player. It's in the rules. Was it a foul 10 years ago? No. Is it a foul now? Yes. Rak had established position, and Parker intiated contact with his elbow. If Rak's arm had been up and it had hit his chest first, would that have made it "look" more like a foul? It's a foul either way. If Rak had flopped after being hit, and fell over I think Duke fans would have thought it was a foul, since they're so used to that.

Amile Jefferson's 4th foul = yes, it is a foul. It's a ticky tack one, but by the letter of the law it's a foul. Do they always call that? No they don't, so I could see being upset.

Rak's block of Hood = NOT A FOUL. Folks, this is simple. He got the ball before Hood's momentum took him into Rak. Ball before incidental contact means no foul. Here's a screen cap I took that shows it's not a foul. Their arms are clearly separated when Rak gets his hand on the ball:

View attachment 7403

Finally -- to really put this to bed. At 14:57 in the second half Jabari Parker gets the ball on the break, makes a nice move to the hoop and is blocked by Rak. It's essentially the SAME EXACT PLAY as the one above. Rak got ball and then they hit arms (momentum and all that). It was not a foul, and Dukie V. actually praised the play by Rak.

If I can find that play I will edit this post with a screen cap to show the play. Point is, they don't call that if you have made the basketball play before there is contact.

This was a GREAT college basketball game, and using a non-foul at the end of the game to complain about being robbed, or for some so-called Syracuse fans to claim that the refs were in our pocket last night sullies how good the game actually was.

IT WASN'T A FOUL. You know how I know you don't know basketball? When you complain about what an awful foul that was.

Every Duke crybaby needs to read and study this post, multiple times!

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I hate having to talk about this crap, but there are some really uneducated fans out there in regards to what is and is not a foul in college basketball.

Jabari Parker's elbow to Rak = foul. Yes, Rak flailed, but you cannot lead with your elbow to clear out a player. It's in the rules. Was it a foul 10 years ago? No. Is it a foul now? Yes. Rak had established position, and Parker intiated contact with his elbow. If Rak's arm had been up and it had hit his chest first, would that have made it "look" more like a foul? It's a foul either way. If Rak had flopped after being hit, and fell over I think Duke fans would have thought it was a foul, since they're so used to that.

Amile Jefferson's 4th foul = yes, it is a foul. It's a ticky tack one, but by the letter of the law it's a foul. Do they always call that? No they don't, so I could see being upset.

Rak's block of Hood = NOT A FOUL. Folks, this is simple. He got the ball before Hood's momentum took him into Rak. Ball before incidental contact means no foul. Here's a screen cap I took that shows it's not a foul. Their arms are clearly separated when Rak gets his hand on the ball:

View attachment 7403

Finally -- to really put this to bed. At 14:57 in the second half Jabari Parker gets the ball on the break, makes a nice move to the hoop and is blocked by Rak. It's essentially the SAME EXACT PLAY as the one above. Rak got ball and then they hit arms (momentum and all that). It was not a foul, and Dukie V. actually praised the play by Rak.

If I can find that play I will edit this post with a screen cap to show the play. Point is, they don't call that if you have made the basketball play before there is contact.

This was a GREAT college basketball game, and using a non-foul at the end of the game to complain about being robbed, or for some so-called Syracuse fans to claim that the refs were in our pocket last night sullies how good the game actually was.

IT WASN'T A FOUL. You know how I know you don't know basketball? When you complain about what an awful foul that was.

Found this on the net to try to explain it to folks.

A common belief in basketball is that "the hand is part of the ball." As a result, players think they have not committed a foul if they hit an opponent's hand while blocking or altering a shot. That is not correct. To register a successful blocked shot, you must primarily hit the ball. If there is incidental contact between the shot blocker and the shooter after the block, then the referee will not call a foul. That contact must come as the player is in the downward portion of the jump.

 

[AZOrange]

Funny part of Jabari's fifth was he knew it. He turned to the ref immediately and tried to signal travel (which he also did). Amazing on replay how badly he walked on nearly every play.

 

[Orangejet]

The real foul was on CJ at the end of OT.

 

[HurleyForHeisman]

I hate having to talk about this crap, but there are some really uneducated fans out there in regards to what is and is not a foul in college basketball.

Jabari Parker's elbow to Rak = foul. Yes, Rak flailed, but you cannot lead with your elbow to clear out a player. It's in the rules. Was it a foul 10 years ago? No. Is it a foul now? Yes. Rak had established position, and Parker intiated contact with his elbow. If Rak's arm had been up and it had hit his chest first, would that have made it "look" more like a foul? It's a foul either way. If Rak had flopped after being hit, and fell over I think Duke fans would have thought it was a foul, since they're so used to that.

Amile Jefferson's 4th foul = yes, it is a foul. It's a ticky tack one, but by the letter of the law it's a foul. Do they always call that? No they don't, so I could see being upset.

Rak's block of Hood = NOT A FOUL. Folks, this is simple. He got the ball before Hood's momentum took him into Rak. Ball before incidental contact means no foul. Here's a screen cap I took that shows it's not a foul. Their arms are clearly separated when Rak gets his hand on the ball:

View attachment 7403

Finally -- to really put this to bed. At 14:57 in the second half Jabari Parker gets the ball on the break, makes a nice move to the hoop and is blocked by Rak. It's essentially the SAME EXACT PLAY as the one above. Rak got ball and then they hit arms (momentum and all that). It was not a foul, and Dukie V. actually praised the play by Rak.

If I can find that play I will edit this post with a screen cap to show the play. Point is, they don't call that if you have made the basketball play before there is contact.

This was a GREAT college basketball game, and using a non-foul at the end of the game to complain about being robbed, or for some so-called Syracuse fans to claim that the refs were in our pocket last night sullies how good the game actually was.

IT WASN'T A FOUL. You know how I know you don't know basketball? When you complain about what an awful foul that was.

I have never agreed more with a post here. Similarly, the foul against CJ was correctly ruled a non-flagrant foul. I really hate the trend in sports, especially college basketball, for fans to complain about the refs incessantly. It's a hard game to officiate, but in most cases these guys do a great job, and they certainly are not going to deliberately favor one team over another.

 

[CusefanATL]

clearly not a foul.

i could see that from atlanta

 

[Jasoncuse]

Anybody saying the refs were in SU's pocket can Adios. Not against Duke and K.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Funny part of Jabari's fifth was he knew it. He turned to the ref immediately and tried to signal travel (which he also did). Amazing on replay how badly he walked on nearly every play.

He had gotten away with a pretty obvious foul earlier in the 2nd half (when it would have been his 4th) for a two handed "block" on Grant, I believe. He played pretty physical. Great player. Getting him and Jefferson out of there was what won it for us.

 

[IthacaMatt]

The real foul was on CJ at the end of OT.

A two handed shove in the back is a straight yellow card, er, I mean flagrant foul. No attempt whatsoever on the ball. Game should have been over right there.

 

[Crusty]

I hate having to talk about this crap, but there are some really uneducated fans out there in regards to what is and is not a foul in college basketball.

Jabari Parker's elbow to Rak = foul. Yes, Rak flailed, but you cannot lead with your elbow to clear out a player. It's in the rules. Was it a foul 10 years ago? No. Is it a foul now? Yes. Rak had established position, and Parker intiated contact with his elbow. If Rak's arm had been up and it had hit his chest first, would that have made it "look" more like a foul? It's a foul either way. If Rak had flopped after being hit, and fell over I think Duke fans would have thought it was a foul, since they're so used to that.

Amile Jefferson's 4th foul = yes, it is a foul. It's a ticky tack one, but by the letter of the law it's a foul. Do they always call that? No they don't, so I could see being upset.

Rak's block of Hood = NOT A FOUL. Folks, this is simple. He got the ball before Hood's momentum took him into Rak. Ball before incidental contact means no foul. Here's a screen cap I took that shows it's not a foul. Their arms are clearly separated when Rak gets his hand on the ball:

View attachment 7403

Finally -- to really put this to bed. At 14:57 in the second half Jabari Parker gets the ball on the break, makes a nice move to the hoop and is blocked by Rak. It's essentially the SAME EXACT PLAY as the one above. Rak got ball and then they hit arms (momentum and all that). It was not a foul, and Dukie V. actually praised the play by Rak.

If I can find that play I will edit this post with a screen cap to show the play. Point is, they don't call that if you have made the basketball play before there is contact.

This was a GREAT college basketball game, and using a non-foul at the end of the game to complain about being robbed, or for some so-called Syracuse fans to claim that the refs were in our pocket last night sullies how good the game actually was.

IT WASN'T A FOUL. You know how I know you don't know basketball? When you complain about what an awful foul that was.

You are probably correct but Dickie V disagreed with you during the telecast. I must admit that I can find no reference anywhere that says so long as ball contact is made first it is not a foul. I thought it was an issue of incidental contact rather than the order of contact or the amount of the ball that the defensive player got.

 

[hallcity]

 

[Cuse315Pat]

Jabari knew it was a foul for clearing space with the elbow, and I have a lot of respect for the guy after he went straight to the bench and cheered his team on. He didn't complain or whine to the ref, he took it like a man, knew he made a mistake, and let his team know they still had a shot, and they did. Jefferson on the other hand, I'm surprised he didn't get T'd up for that fourth foul, dude was moaning and screaming the whole time the camera was on him afterwards. He could have easily ended up with 8 fouls in the game, got away with a lot.

Honestly, I'm surprised their players didn't foul out sooner. I think there was maybe two over the back's called during the entire game. Lot's of bodies flying into rebounders and no calls throughout the game. We could have easily shot another 10 FT's on some of those ridiculous "offensive rebounds". I believe 1/3 of their offensive rebounds would usually be ruled a foul in most arenas/conferences, but not against Duke in the ACC. But I mean, that was typical Big East style physical play. We use to it.

And that's a great pic of the block, wow. Big time Rakeem.

 

[SUSScuse]

Parker should have been called for his first foul when JG rebounded a miss and was going up to score when Parker slapped his arm and the ball and players fell to the floor. JG picked up the foul on the play when it should have been an obvious foul on Parker.

 

[Cuseregular]

The real foul was on CJ at the end of OT.

or from the stands what looked like an intentional against ennis in ot

 

[orangefan13]

We went inside and Duke fouled us Duke lived by the perimeter that is why they got fewer foul calls. Thats a big point to be made.

At the beginning of the second half Duke had atleast 5-6 over the backs/hit on the arms on our defensive rebounds, which led to 18 offensive boards for them. I am willing to bet Jefferson and Parker were in on those, so you can argue those two could have been in foul trouble earlier on. Furthermore they scored on most of those offensive boards during a period where they weren't hitting 3's and played right into a nonadvantage on our own court by the refs.

On Raks block the only controversy is did they bump elbows a split second before they hit the ball. In my opinion, yes they did but, Raks hands were straight up and he wasn't jumping into the attacker, also his hands were squared up right in front of the ball and as high as Solumons. Solomon had the ball back between his head so yes they did bump elbows because solomon had a pointed elbow out in front of the ball. But, You can't just put the ball behind your head everytime you jump into a shotblocker expecting a body or arm foul. If you could, there would be no point to ever shoot a shot other then that.

Parker cleared rak out to a point he just had to lay the ball in. imo Acting or not, it still should have been a turnover. You cant get a free layup on a clearout its just not right.

 

[Cowtown]

I agree with the no-call on Christmas' block. But for the purpose of discussion, let's be aware that the only thing a "still" photo shows is there appears not to be anything at that single, momentary point that indicates a foul has been committed. Also remember "contact" does not mean "foul." Contact that creates a disadvantage constitutes a foul, and one needs to see the entire play to determine that. That's why you'll see more and more good refs blow the whistle a "half-count late," after seeing the entire play. So, assuming it was consistent with the way it was called through the entire game, no-call appears to be the correct call. But having at least 5 players with 4 fouls or more, one can certainly understand why K wanted that call there.

And sorry to point this out, but anyone who thinks Parker's 5th foul was a good call is watching through orange-colored glasses. I'm not criticizing the ref, just saying Christmas sold it. It's quite obvious on the replay. Ffwd to about 1:20:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400502829

 

[A Clockwork Orange]

I agree with the no-call on Christmas' block. But for the purpose of discussion, let's be aware that the only thing a "still" photo shows is there appears not to be anything at that single, momentary point that indicates a foul has been committed. Also remember "contact" does not mean "foul." Contact that creates a disadvantage constitutes a foul, and one needs to see the entire play to determine that. That's why you'll see more and more good refs blow the whistle a "half-count late," after seeing the entire play. So, assuming it was consistent with the way it was called through the entire game, no-call appears to be the correct call. But having at least 5 players with 4 fouls or more, one can certainly understand why K wanted that call there.

And sorry to point this out, but anyone who thinks Parker's 5th foul was a good call is watching through orange-colored glasses. I'm not criticizing the ref, just saying Christmas sold it. It's quite obvious on the replay. Ffwd to about 1:20:

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400502829

Absolutely a still cannot show one way or another. That wasn't the point of posting it. The point was to show that there was NOT contact BEFORE Rak blocked it. Which that picture shows clearly.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the Parker foul. I guess you can consider that in some respect a judgment call, but Parker turned, and hit Rak with his elbow in a spot where Christmas already had position. I've seen charges for less obvious calls. If I recall from the NCAA handbook it's not a foul if it's incidental contact. That wasn't incidental. He was turning and moving into a place where a player already had established position. I actually think the replay proves the point.

 

[Cowtown]

Absolutely a still cannot show one way or another. That wasn't the point of posting it. The point was to show that there was NOT contact BEFORE Rak blocked it. Which that picture shows clearly.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the Parker foul. I guess you can consider that in some respect a judgment call, but Parker turned, and hit Rak with his elbow in a spot where Christmas already had position. I've seen charges for less obvious calls. If I recall from the NCAA handbook it's not a foul if it's incidental contact. That wasn't incidental. He was turning and moving into a place where a player already had established position. I actually think the replay proves the point.

It's okay that we disagree, it's not like I'm right all the time . We all appreciate an intelligent discussion. What I saw on the replay after watching it 3 times is that Parker felt the contact and stopped. Now if he continues on through it, that's a different situation, and the "sell" would not have been so noticeable.

LGO!!

 

[Coach Orange]

Two points:

1. The Rule of Verticality states that contact is not the key to a foul. The key is who has the legal position. On that play, Roc is straight up and down at the moment of the block. The arms collide, but based on the Rule of Verticality, Roc is entitled to that space because he does not leave his vertical plane. Hence, Hood entering the space and causing contact does not merit a defensive foul.

2. The Parker foul is, by definition, now a foul automatically. In fact, when an elbow is swung by a player, the play is subject to review in order to determine the location of the elbow and the severity of the foul. If reviewed, Parker would not have been assessed a flagrant foul given that the elbow hit Roc's chest. However, the fact that the official didn't need to review the play means he got a good look at it and knew where the elbow landed. Hence, he knew that a foul was committed.

That said, Roc's "acting" is irrelevant to the call--the referee has to call a foul regardless of the reaction of the player receiving the elbow.

 

[Mistakebythelake90]

Look, the dunk call is usually a 50-50 call, I could easily see it being called either way. But half the internet is acting like it was a sure fire, can't-miss call, which I think is stupid. If you watch it live, it was really hard to tell, and even with people slowing it down significantly, it still isn't clear. Given how close it was, I would prefer they don't call it, like they did.