Question about Singler's foul...

[bjornolf]

I have a question about the play where Singler was eventually pushed over a Wisconsin player, resulting in a technical. It appeared to me in the replay that Singler had position on the Wisconsin player, who, in desperation, threw his gigantic arm over Singler's shoulder and tried to hold him down, then lost his balance when Singler was too strong for him going for the rebound. How is this a foul on Singler? I just don't understand it. I thought that would be a pretty basic foul for over the back or something on the Wisconsin player.

Thanks.

[MulletMan]

Singler went over the Wiscy players back on the play. His right arm got tangled with the other players left... you may not be able to see that on the replay. It was about 20 feet in front of me and a good call. The T was also a good call.

[Section 8]

With all due respect, they showed the replay about 5 times, and the Wiscy player's whole arm was on top of Singler's shoulder (from the back), pushing down. I agree with the o.p.

[Section 8]

Also, a funny little tidbit for those who didn't see the broadcast: While attempting to cue up the replay of the technical foul, they accidentally(?) showed the earlier hard foul on the baseline that bloodied Singler. Probably accidental, but it came off like an editorial comment from the producer.

[mbd1mbd1]

Yes, they were tangled up, and if the ball had come off the rim towards Kyle instead of towards the Wisconsin player, they probably would have called a foul on Wisconsin. I think it was just a matter of where the ball went.

[gvtucker]

Singler went over the Wiscy players back on the play. His right arm got tangled with the other players left... you may not be able to see that on the replay. It was about 20 feet in front of me and a good call. The T was also a good call.

Disagree, Mullet. It looked pretty clear to me that the Wiscy player went over Singler's back, that the ref missed that one. Singler had the inside position, the Wiscy player had his arm over Singler's back, and when Singler tried to jump, the Wiscy player went down because his arm was locked over Singler's shoulder.

[jacone21]

Anybody have a link to the rule on shooting the free throws in that situation? It seemed odd to me that they would have a Wisconsin player shoot the front end of the 1 and 1, and then have the Duke player shoot the technicals. Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot the technicals and then pick up play with the 1 and 1 at the other end? If it were a non shooting foul on Singler, wouldn't Wisconsin have been given possession after the technical freethrows?

It just seemed odd, the order in which that played out. I've watched lots of hoops in my time, and I don't remember ever seeing that exact situation.

Someone enlighten me.

[Bluedog]

Anybody have a link to the rule on shooting the free throws in that situation? It seemed odd to me that they would have a Wisconsin player shoot the front end of the 1 and 1, and then have the Duke player shoot the technicals. Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot the technicals and then pick up play with the 1 and 1 at the other end? If it were a non shooting foul on Singler, wouldn't Wisconsin have been given possession after the technical freethrows?

It just seemed odd, the order in which that played out. I've watched lots of hoops in my time, and I don't remember ever seeing that exact situation.

Someone enlighten me.

Ummm, no. After a technical, the team always gets two shots and the ball. So, you make the team who is going to retain the ball, shoot the free throws second in the sequence. If it were a non-shooting foul on Singler, Duke would have been given possession after the technical free throws as far as I know. I've never seen the other team get possession after a T. Right?

[jacone21]

Ummm, no. After a technical, the team always gets two shots and the ball. So, you make the team who is going to retain the ball, shoot the free throws second in the sequence. If it were a non-shooting foul on Singler, Duke would have been given possession after the technical free throws as far as I know. I've never seen the other team get possession after a T. Right?

I thought the possession after a technical rule was changed a couple of years ago, so that play was resumed where the technical was called. So that teams didn't necessarily lose possession on a technical foul. That's why I got confused last night by that play.

[captmojo]

I was much more puzzled by Ryan's reaction after every foul call against his squad. He was so dramatic, at times I was feared for his safety. I hope he doesn't have high blood pressure.

[CMS2478]

I was much more puzzled by Ryan's reaction after every foul call against his squad. He was so dramatic, at times I was feared for his safety. I hope he doesn't have high blood pressure.

But he does the exact same thing.

[Duvall]

But he does the exact same thing.

Yeah, but it's funnier when Ryan does it. He looks like a cartoon character.

[CMS2478]

Yeah, but it's funnier when Ryan does it. He looks like a cartoon character.

He is an interesting looking character!!!

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

The TV replay segments showed that Singler was fouled BUT, is it possible that MulletMan saw something in person that occured before the cameras starting filming that exchange? IOW's, how did Singler have such good position when the replay segments started?

If this is not the case, then is it possible for MulletMan to carpool (in order to help the environment) to an eye doctor with the zebras?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[dukeENG2003]

But he does the exact same thing.

I very much disagree. K doesn't go after every call, in fact, he's pretty good at just choosing the ones that are REALLY bad. I see him sitting on the bench "smelling his finger" a lot during bad calls.

WRT the foul, I had a very good view of it in person, saw Singler do nothing at all to get that position, except box out like he should. My voice was ragged by that point in the game, but I SCREAMED about it nonetheless. Even the Wisconsin fan next to me didn't quite understand the call.

[mapei]

I see him sitting on the bench "smelling his finger" a lot during bad calls.

Talk about Too Much Information . . .

[captmojo]

But he does the exact same thing.

Not for every foul call against him.

I think if Singler had come down with the ball it would have been a Wisconsin foul. Whosoever had possession won the moment. The technical was proper. The best reaction by the Wisconsin player would have been to catch Kyle with a hug rather than pop him with a forearm shiver.

[jjasper0729]

the rules on technicals have changed the last couple of years. They have become differentiated.

The technical called on the wisconsin player was considered an intentional technical foul which resulted in 2 free throws and the ball. they are also counted as personal fouls toward the total of 5 allowed.

those technical fouls that are not considered intentional but are direct (bench techs) constitute two free throws and the ball is placed back in play at the point of interruption (no "and the ball"). These also count towards the team total of fouls and toward the 5 total fouls allowed per player.

indirect technical fouls (hanging on the basket, slapping the backboard) are treated as two free throws and the ball is placed back in play at the point of interruption (no "and the ball"). these do not count toward the team or player total but contribute to the formula for disqualification/ejection based on technical fouls assesed to a player/substitute.

this is under rule 10 in the rulebook. section 3.

[jacone21]

the rules on technicals have changed the last couple of years. They have become differentiated.

The technical called on the wisconsin player was considered an intentional technical foul which resulted in 2 free throws and the ball. they are also counted as personal fouls toward the total of 5 allowed.

those technical fouls that are not considered intentional but are direct (bench techs) constitute two free throws and the ball is placed back in play at the point of interruption (no "and the ball"). These also count towards the team total of fouls and toward the 5 total fouls allowed per player.

indirect technical fouls (hanging on the basket, slapping the backboard) are treated as two free throws and the ball is placed back in play at the point of interruption (no "and the ball"). these do not count toward the team or player total but contribute to the formula for disqualification/ejection based on technical fouls assesed to a player/substitute.

this is under rule 10 in the rulebook. section 3.

Intentional Technical Foul. Gotcha! That's what I was looking for. Too bad the analysts can't stop talking about restaurants and other teams long enough to explain that. Thanks for the distinction.

[jjasper0729]

the reason the wisconsin player shot the free throws first is because Duke would be receiving the ball after the technicals. If it was a garden variety technical (that sounds so stupid, i mean direct/indirect, not intentional/flagrant), Duke would have shot the free throws and then the game would have moved to the other end in a regular 1+1 sequence for wisconsin as would have normally happened in the course of the game.