It's an absurd interpretation of the rule ...

[Cowtown]

the way it is now, if you run into another players elbow, while leading with your face, you get two and possession. The refs are interpreting it the way they've been told to, and that's the source of the problem. It's absolutely freaking stupid this way.

 

[SU2NASA]

the way it is now, if you run into another players elbow, while leading with your face, you get two and possession. The refs are interpreting it the way they've been told to, and that's the source of the problem. It's absolutely freaking stupid this way.

There wasn't even contact.

 

[Cowtown]

There wasn't even contact.

I think there was some, although not enough to warrant that kind of a call. The Dayton player fairly ran right into Cooney, out of control, and was thus responsible for initiating the contact, and precipitating the reaction. It's simply wrong to reward a player for leading with his face in that situation. Cooney made no attempt to initiate contact, for he circled the ball over his head within his cylinder - to which he's entitled. Hopefully the powers that be will look further into this and modify the way this situation is handled. For it's just bullsh!t what happened on that particular play.

 

[Cootface]

I think there was some, although not enough to warrant that kind of a call. The Dayton player fairly ran right into Cooney, out of control, and was thus responsible for initiating the contact, and precipitating the reaction. It's simply wrong to reward a player for leading with his face in that situation. Cooney made no attempt to initiate contact, for he circled the ball over his head within his cylinder - to which he's entitled. Hopefully the powers that be will look further into this and modify the way this situation is handled. For it's just bullsh!t what happened on that particular play.

Giving you a like because, ref or not, I'm pretty sure I've never agreed with any of your interpretations on the rule book (even if I'm wrong most of the time) until now.

 

[Cowtown]

Giving you a like because, ref or not, I'm pretty sure I've never agreed with any of your interpretations on the rule book (even if I'm wrong most of the time) until now.

I'm all about fair. Welcome aboard!

 

[OttoMets]

How does the ref not call the foul on the Dayton player? Honest question.

He's looking right at the defender initiating significant contact with the ballhandler and he willfully ignores it. How can a guy keep working when he blows something so straightforward?

 

[swish7]

How does the ref not call the foul on the Dayton player? Honest question.

He's looking right at the defender initiating significant contact with the ballhandler and he willfully ignores it. How can a guy keep working when he blows something so straightforward?

I guess I'm lost as to when and why defenders became allowed to make any contact with ball handlers?

 

[Jasonrob44]

I guess I'm lost as to when and why defenders became allowed to make any contact with ball handlers?

Any contact of that sort was a foul early in the year and was a point of emphasis. They just choose to not stay consistent with it come March it seems because there has been hand checking and impeding the offensive players progress all tournament long...

 

[Kevind13]

the way it is now, if you run into another players elbow, while leading with your face, you get two and possession. The refs are interpreting it the way they've been told to, and that's the source of the problem. It's absolutely freaking stupid this way.

I agree with you. And if I remember correctly something you said earlier in the week is if they don't call it the way the ncaa wants them to then they have less of a chance to advance themselves?

 

[OttoMets]

But the ref blew the first call - a defender can't run into a ballhandler without a whistle.

His ineptitude is right there for everyone to see. Don't the evaluators care about that? (I think we know the answer to that question.)