…when Moses turns to go up for his shot, the ball is only in his elevated right hand, his elbow comes close to the defender’s nose but the impact (if any) is not enough to effect his successful shot, the defender flops like he has been sucker punched by Mike Tyson, and, after a lengthy review, the officials (it appears reluctantly) decide not to call a flagrant foul on Moses and just make it a regular offensive foul. The TV announcers were dumbfounded by the call and I am too.
If the SEC does not sanction this officiating crew, they are worthless scumbags. JMVVVVVVVVHO
The explanation provided at the time was that the Florida defender was in a correct defensive position and Moses initiated the contact. Moses feels like he should have been given room to shoot, but that’s not the rule. If my hands are straight up (a correct defensive position) and the shooter initiates contact, then no foul. Same with the defenders face. If his face is in a correct defensive position and a shooter turns and hit’s him in the face while shooting, then that is a foul on the shooter. That’s the explanation. I’ve seen the replay several times. I don’t like the call, because I seriously doubt it is called that way all the time, but I do believe this ref made the correct call, by the rule.
Additionally, the only thing to review is whether it was a flagrant, since it was an elbow to the face. Moses, not knowing the rule, thinks they were reviewing to overturn the call. They can’t overturn his foul, unless they had called a flagrant on him and then determined it wasn’t flagrant. but, they can’t reverse and call on the other player. That’s not an option.
This is something the TV analyst (forget his name) didn’t seem to know, as he stated during the video review by the referees that “they can change it and make it on the defender”. That didn’t sound right to me . . . I’ve never seen an offensive foul reversed and called on the defender after a video review - ever. But he went on and on about it - even predicting that was going to happen just before the official came over and gave him the “official” explanation.
They wave off fouls all the time when a different official has a better view. Can the same thing not happen if a video review reveals there was minimal contact? Flop artists get away with murder (our Daryl Macon is one that is really good at it). Why can’t a video review correct a call that was based on minimal contact and maximum flopping?
You can’t go to the monitor to determine if the foul should be offense or defense. You can got the monitor to determine: who the ball went out of bounds off of in the last 2 minutes; clock issues; to pick correct defender to call foul on; or, flagrant fouls.
I hear ya. It’s tricky. Like I said, I’ve see it called both way. The explanation was he was in a defensive position and Moses initiated the contact. I think you can hold your ground and move up and down, i.e. like jumping straight up with your hands straight up. You can’t move forward and initiate the contact. Now if Moses elbow was above the defenders head and the defender moved up into the elbow then he would have initiated the contact. So, my point is, “moving” is not what determines the foul. “Position” determines the foul. Again, the monitor wasn’t to determine position, it was only to determine flagrant or not. And the only reason so many of us have an opinion is because we looked at the monitor. The ref made the call quickly and determined who had position and who didn’t.
On the elbow issue I thought the FL player played it…I didn’t see any contact with Moses’ elbow. Did I miss it? Looked to me like the FL guy knew it was close and jerked his head back, feigning contact. My eyes are not what they once were, I admit.
As I read the rule book, I don’t believe they could have counted Moses bucket and called the Florida guy for a foul since they had already whistled Moses. However, there appears a clause in Rule 10-3.1.d could have been applied if the officials deemed (upon review at the monitor) the Florida player faked being fouled (which the extreme tossing back of the head could’ve passed muster for).
d. Faking being fouled by an opponent when confirmed by instant replay during a review for a flagrant foul, contact dead ball technical foul or flagrant 2 contact technical foul. (See Rule 11-2.1.d.6.)
In this instance, the Florida player could’ve been assessed a Technical foul with two free throws for us.
I actually like this rule, but had no idea it was an option. Wish they’d use it more for flops. I’d be fine with giving basketball coaches one challenge per game for the flop calls. If caught, the offenders should be charged a flagrant foul.
Here’s the real issue a few games back Beard was in leaf all giarding position and took a elbow to the face and Beard was called for the foul. Last night Mosses goes up after he turns to the hole the MA. Guarding had his arm acroos his back before he turned Also got Mosses across the arm and it was called an offensive foul.
So it makes no difference in the SEC. We took it both ways.
It’s as sorry as Ole Miss shooting a 3 last year after the shot clock read 000 they reviewed and still gave them the points.
I have called the SEC office and it does no good. The announcers stated how horrible the call was.
It has always been fact for hogs to win it can’t be close and I believe it. Last night the call stoped a run. It did not cause the hogs to loose. Poor shooting was what bear is!
But I disiagree with your finding of grounds for an offensive foul. Like you said, the defender has to be “straight up.” If that’s the case, Moses’ would not have been able, with his correct shooting motion going straight up, to contact the defender’s face had the defender not been sticking his face out. His head was “ahead” of his body, and was therefore able to foul, just as if his arms were out there.
Not saying right or wrong on the call, but take what announcers say with a grain of salt. Most of the time, with regards to officiating, they have no clue on the rules, interpretation, or philosophy of officiating.