Good no call, Blind Luck, Genius??????

[wsubball96]

After the tip in Tatum knocks down the Bradley inbounder while he was trying to throw the ball in. The officials stopped play which allowed SIU to setup their Defense.

Notice in the frame 3 BU inbound options and 2 SIU players in the frame one being Tatum completely out of position.

Was in on purpose... I don't think he thought that far ahead but was it an advantage???? I think its a big one. Who knows if BU could have scored... Could they have blown the whistle? Would have been understandable. Tatum could have run straight on the floor but he didn't he ran at an angle. No matter what... it was still a great game.

Bradley definitely deserves to be in the NCAA they could be last years MSU.


DO YOU BLOW THE WHISTLE? (http://members.cox.net/goshoxgo/SIUBU.wmv)

[Keita44]

After the tip in Tatum knocks down the Bradley inbounder while he was trying to throw the ball in. The officials stopped play which allowed SIU to setup their Defense.

Notice in the frame 3 BU inbound options and 2 SIU players in the frame one being Tatum completely out of position.

Was in on purpose... I don't think he thought that far ahead but was it an advantage???? I think its a big one. Who knows if BU could have scored... Could they have blown the whistle? Would have been understandable. Tatum could have run straight on the floor but he didn't he ran at an angle. No matter what... it was still a great game.

Bradley definitely deserves to be in the NCAA they could be last years MSU.


DO YOU BLOW THE WHISTLE? (http://members.cox.net/goshoxgo/SIUBU.wmv)


I thought it should have been a foul. He ran the inbounder over. BU at that point didnt have much of a chance. Why didn't they at least try to throw the ball down the court and attempt a decent shot instead of a half courter?

BU deserves in.

[txsaluki05]

Sigh.

Danny Adams had a chance at two free throws, missed them both. BU had plenty of opportunities to win this game, but they didnt make their shots.

[AE Braves Fan]

Tauai should have inbounded the ball either to Tatum or out of bounds.

Then they would have had to call a foul.

[iSASO]

Officials can't call every foul. SIU games alone would last for days.

[TheAsianSensation]

Personally, I would've called a delay of game against SIU. It would've been just a warning, so there would've been no free throws for Bradley.

Actually, because of the play, SIU got to set their defense, which is pretty maddening. But whatever. We had other screwups in this game which cost us.

[WSUbballer]

I think it was unfair because the whole situation allowed SIU to set their fabulous, relentless, fair and balanced defense. If the ref blew the whistle, which he did, there should have been a motion towards the score table that a foul had been committed.

And no denying SIU fans that it was 2 points shy of a WWE smackdown move.

[bcrawf]

The only thing you could have called there was a Technical for Delay of Game (like when the D catches the ball after a made basket). No ref is going to do that to decide the outcome...

It really didn't look intentional to me. Not a big deal...

[Mecha_Bulldog]

If I were a Braves fan, I'd be furious at that no-call. After the basket, Bradley's best chance to score was in transition before SIU could set, which is what they were trying to do. Instead the officials stopped play to let everyone recover. I doubt the hit was intentional, but it certainly gave SIU an advantage.

That said, if I were a Braves fan I'd hope I'd be more upset that my team missed two free throws and couldn't box out at the end, and couldn't hold the lead they had much of the game.

[dawg]

I dunno, maybe I'm blind, but I saw what I thought were 6 to 10 uncalled fouls AGAINST the Salukis. Overall, I think it was pretty fair, however.

[MoValley John]

That is a fould on the inbounds, no question about it. Making contact with the man attempting to put the ball in play is a foul, whether or not you are inbounds yourself.

[RiseUp]

If I were a Braves fan, I'd be furious at that no-call. After the basket, Bradley's best chance to score was in transition before SIU could set, which is what they were trying to do. Instead the officials stopped play to let everyone recover. I doubt the hit was intentional, but it certainly gave SIU an advantage.....



Agreed. That's why most coaches do not call time-out in those situations. They do not want to go up against a team's set defense, but would rather attack a scrambling defense.

[MoValley John]

I just have one question. Since when is a foul called- or not called, based on intent? Who cares about Tatum's intent. It was a foul and should have been called. Intent has nothing to do with it! If fouls were called based on the officials opinion of intent, we would have 3-4 fouls a game.

[WSUbballer]

I just have one question. Since when is a foul called- or not called, based on intent? Who cares about Tatum's intent. It was a foul and should have been called. Intent has nothing to do with it! If fouls were called based on the officials opinion of intent, we would have 3-4 fouls a game.

Exactly.

[dawg]

I think it was unfair because the whole situation allowed SIU to set their fabulous, relentless, fair and balanced defense. If the ref blew the whistle, which he did, there should have been a motion towards the score table that a foul had been committed.

And no denying SIU fans that it was 2 points shy of a WWE smackdown move.

Half right isn't bad ... you are improving.

[jliehr]

If it's not a foul, then it's traveling for stepping over the line. You can't just simply swallow the whistle on that.

:wheelchair: :chair:

[MoValley John]

The best part was after the contact, Tatum did the "If I throw my hands up, he won't call it" routine. Nothing says "I just fouled" more than watching a player do that.

[AcePurple]

Interesting that the people crying about this aren't even Bradley fans, but fans of other schools apparently suffering from Saluki-Envy.

[MoValley John]

Interesting that the people crying about this aren't even Bradley fans, but fans of other schools apparently suffering from Saluki-Envy.

I have no envy. In fact, if you look at officiating threads that began early during conference play, I have always defended the refs and been a stallwart in stating that the refs rarely dictate the outcome of a game. I have made no opinions on this thread regarding the competency of the officials, how the game was called, or possibly affected the outcome. I merely made observartions based on one particticular play, reviewed on a seven second clip, which is a sub part of a 40 minute game. ValleyTalk is otherwise quiet tonight, as many posters are drunk in St. Louis and this thread is helping to keep me occupied.

That said, we do have the video clip in which we can look at and make a determination on this one particular play. If you watch the clip, then you read MY posts, you will see that I have only made three assertions: 1. It was a foul. 2. Intent has no bearing on whether a foul should be called and 3. When a player, following contact, thows both hands up, he usually just committed a foul.

So in conclusion, no Saluki envy here.

[XSaluki]

I have no envy.

Now address the crying part of his accusation.:innocent:

[DB for POY]

I was at the game and didn't realize there was any controversy over this play but, the worst that could have been called is a foul definitely not a technical. A player has to be able to re-enter the court after a play so you could just as easily say the guy for Bradley was impeding Tatum's way onto the court because they were both moving. A foul would have given them 2 free throws so at best they would have had a tie to go to OT.

[MoValley John]

Now address the crying part of his accusation.:innocent:

Well since it's a slow night, my wife is working and my kids are running wild, I have nothing better to do.

As for crying, who is crying? Not me, I don't have a dog in the fight. Shocker fans are crying, but for other obvious reasons. Drake fans are crying, but not because they lost, rather because their beloved Tom Davis is stepping down. Indiana State and Evansville fans are probably celebrating, hoping for better times with new coaches. SIU fans aren't crying, they won the game, neither are Creighton fans, they won and along with SIU fans have no reason to cry. I can't speak of Bradley fans, they are probably just too shell shocked to cry- tomorrow may be a downpour of tears. As for Missouri State fans, they are both laughing and crying; some think that missing the NCAA's will get rid of Hinson, they are laughing, others think they still have a shot and regardless, support Hinson, they are crying.

Very few are crying about the call, just discussing.

[MoValley John]

I was at the game and didn't realize there was any controversy over this play but, the worst that could have been called is a foul definitely not a technical. A player has to be able to re-enter the court after a play so you could just as easily say the guy for Bradley was impeding Tatum's way onto the court because they were both moving. A foul would have given them 2 free throws so at best they would have had a tie to go to OT.

To me. it's not a big controversy, SIU had taken the momentum and was going to win the game, but the play is fun to talk about. As for your assertion that a player has a right to reenter the court, you are right, but only to the point that another player would intentionally block him. That is not the case. The man inbounding the ball has the right to the entire baseline; Tatum ran up his back and knocked him over. As I said earlier, whether or not Tatum intended to male contact is irrelevant, he made contact with the man trying to inbound. Whether or not Tatum was in or out of bounds, if you touch the man attempting to inbound, it is a foul.

[BMull10]

You guys are kidding, right? Jamaal was trying to run around him to get back on the floor, Tauai jumped back and they happened to collide. The refs with out a doubt did the right thing there.

[MoValley John]

You guys are kidding, right? Jamaal was trying to run around him to get back on the floor, Tauai jumped back and they happened to collide. The refs with out a doubt did the right thing there.

Tauai did not jump, he was moving down the baseline- as the inbounder, it is his right. Tatum ran, out of bounds, down the baseline and collided with the ballhandler, intentional or not, a foul.

[Fraydog]

Well, it's a great non-call in that both players looked like they were instigating the contact. It would have been stupid on the part of the refs to call a double foul in that situation, especially on an inbounds play at the end of the game. IMO, it's better to let it play out in this scenario. The Bradley fans I talked to today were all class, none I ran into after the game complained about this foul.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Sigh.

Danny Adams had a chance at two free throws, missed them both. BU had plenty of opportunities to win this game, but they didnt make their shots.

This play deserves discussion. Shut up with this stupid crap. Prior opportunities have nothing to do with it.

[BMull10]

Tauai did not jump, he was moving down the baseline- as the inbounder, it is his right. Tatum ran, out of bounds, down the baseline and collided with the ballhandler, intentional or not, a foul.
Tauai did jump back, he wasn't trying to initiate contact, he was just jumping back to throw the ball in. Jamaal was already out of bounds after his shot, he got up and tried to run around, he wasn't trying initiate anything either, they just collided, it's that simple. Honestly, this play doesn't even deserve any discussion.

[MoValley John]

Tauai did jump back, he wasn't trying to initiate contact, he was just jumping back to throw the ball in. Jamaal was already out of bounds after his shot, he got up and tried to run around, he wasn't trying initiate anything either, they just collided, it's that simple. Honestly, this play doesn't even deserve any discussion.

So what you are saying is that referees need to determine if contact was intentional before they blow a whistle. Seems to me like a slippery slope. If an offensive player is trying to make a play and a defender hits him, hits him hard enough to knock him down, it's a foul, even if it's not intentional. It doesn't matter if it's at mid court or on an inbounds play. If two players are moving and collide, one with the ball, when an advantage is gained, it's a foul on the defender.

In my opinion, the ref didn't call a foul because it was late in the game and he thought the whistle could have had a major impact on the game. The ref chose to eat the whistle. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul. I'm not angry, I really don't care, but it's just a slow night at home and the thread is interesting. As I said in previous threads, the call or lack of a call didn't change the outcome. SIU had momentum and Bradley was gassed. SIU would win regardless.

[MVC Fan]

I just have one question. Since when is a foul called- or not called, based on intent? Who cares about Tatum's intent. It was a foul and should have been called. Intent has nothing to do with it! If fouls were called based on the officials opinion of intent, we would have 3-4 fouls a game.

Agree w/this totally. Unfortunately, a lot of ppl close to the game believe this does matter. I always hear on TV how a guy didn't intend to make the contact, therefore it shouldn't be called, and many officials actually buy into this. I think it stinks, officials' job isn't to interpret, it's to call what they see.

I did see the play as unintentional, however, it did effect what BU was going to do. It did not surprise me at all that nothing was called, though, esp. after seeing the Texas-A&M game the other night where a blatant intentional foul was not called at the end of the 2 OT. I think it was a bang-bang play.

[MoValley John]

As far as calls go, it's really not that big of a deal. This is one call during a 40 minute game. Does it mean Bradley got jobbed. Heck no! But to argue that it wasn't a foul is rediculous. If I were a fan of SIU, seeing we have a video clip of the play, I wouldn't argue the foul, I would say that the officials called it fair both ways, missed some here and there, and we got away with that particular one. I'd continue by adding that Bradley got away with a few also.

[dogdays]

Maybe I missed this but I think t he biggest problem that BU had was that they had to use two timeouts in the second half because they were about to have jump balls called. Those two time outs would have been valuable at the end. Instead of JJ having to rush the play , they could have called time and set something up. But, they used their timouts early and it hurt them at the end, no doubt.

[BMull10]

So what you are saying is that referees need to determine if contact was intentional before they blow a whistle. Seems to me like a slippery slope. If an offensive player is trying to make a play and a defender hits him, hits him hard enough to knock him down, it's a foul, even if it's not intentional. It doesn't matter if it's at mid court or on an inbounds play. If two players are moving and collide, one with the ball, when an advantage is gained, it's a foul on the defender.

In my opinion, the ref didn't call a foul because it was late in the game and he thought the whistle could have had a major impact on the game. The ref chose to eat the whistle. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul. I'm not angry, I really don't care, but it's just a slow night at home and the thread is interesting. As I said in previous threads, the call or lack of a call didn't change the outcome. SIU had momentum and Bradley was gassed. SIU would win regardless.
By NCAA definition: Incidental contact- Contact shall not constitute a foul. When 10 players move rapidly in an area, some contact is certain to occur. Incidental contact shall be contact with an opponent that is permitted and does not constitute a foul.

That's what that was, incidental contact. Both were trying to get where they were supposed to be and they collided.

[Mikovio]

Maybe I missed this but I think t he biggest problem that BU had was that they had to use two timeouts in the second half because they were about to have jump balls called. Those two time outs would have been valuable at the end. Instead of JJ having to rush the play , they could have called time and set something up. But, they used their timouts early and it hurt them at the end, no doubt.
I doubt Bradley would have called a timeout anyway. The ensuing confusion was to their advantage, as Ruffin and Franklin were ready to streak up the court.

We lost this game because we missed our free throws. End of story.

Oh well, at least now we don't have to worry about Les going anywhere....

[MoValley John]

By NCAA definition: Incidental contact- Contact shall not constitute a foul. When 10 players move rapidly in an area, some contact is certain to occur. Incidental contact shall be contact with an opponent that is permitted and does not constitute a foul.

That's what that was, incidental contact. Both were trying to get where they were supposed to be and they collided.

You are correct, but contact that creates an advantage, incidental, or not, is a foul. Tatum didn't intend to knock the guy with the ball over, but he did. When he did, he created an advantage for SIU, a foul. It's just the same as when two post players are banging under thwe rim, there is lots of contact, some intentional and some incidental. It's not necessarally a foul, but when somebody is knocked over, or based on the contact, an advantage is gained, it's a foul.

[MVC 4 Life]

You are correct, but contact that creates an advantage, incidental, or not, is a foul. Tatum didn't intend to knock the guy with the ball over, but he did. When he did, he created an advantage for SIU, a foul. It's just the same as when two post players are banging under thwe rim, there is lots of contact, some intentional and some incidental. It's not necessarally a foul, but when somebody is knocked over, or based on the contact, an advantage is gained, it's a foul.

That is your judgment that it was an advantage for SIU. While I agree with you that stopping the play and getting the ball in while SIU has its D set is advantage for SIU, but that is a judgment. Some may say that this gave Bradley the advantage because it acted like an extra timeout so they could get their O set up. Either way you look at it, it is a judgment on who had the advantage on the play.

[SubGod22]

All that rule is saying is that not all contact is a foul.

When I saw the play live I was suprised they didn't call a foul. Tatum took a path that wasn't the most direct way inbounds.

[rjl]

After seeing it live and watching the replay, I'd say it was an intimidation move that got more physical than Falker intended. He's staring right at the guy as he runs into him.

Should have been some sort of call, most likely a foul.

[MSNSaluki]

Let me know when you John Higgins-wannabes go to work for the Valley.
Until then ...

[SubGod22]

If a kid does something like that in a game I do I'd probably call the foul.