Oden's Flagrant Foul

[Coballs]

Excuse me if this has already been addressed, but Xavier clearly got hosed by the refs at the end of regulation. When Oden threw the Xavier player to the floor, an intentional foul should have been called. With 2 shots and the ball with 6 secs left in a 2 point game, the game would have been locked up for Xavier. I was shocked when a flagrant foul was not called. I was less than surprised when the announcing team (Bonner and Gus Johnson?) either completely missed or simply ignored this incident. Back in the studio, not much was made of this no-call and it's ultimate impact on the outcome of the game...and potentially the NCAA tournament. Seth Davis, using faulty reasoning, actually defended the referees.
Does anyone believe that had it been Duke in the role of OSU/Oden that the fans and the national media would make light of this situation? Of course not! There would be cries that the refs swallowed the whistle for Duke, we stole another game, the offending player is a thug, and on and on... This is the real double-standard to which Duke is held.

[vsmkch]

Agree....definitely should have called an intentional foul. Olden made absolutely not attempt to play the ball. Don't know why they have the rule, because it is seldom called. Does anyone have a link to what Olden said about the refs in the post-game press conference?

[Atlanta Duke]

As was discussed in another thread yesterday, Oden's shove might have been an intentional foul under the letter of the law (I posted I thought it was following the game) but no ref was going to end the game by calling it.

Upon reflection I now agree with those who said it should not have been called intentional - Xavier can blame itself for missing the second foul shot and not fouling before the 3 point shot that tied the game.

[gannon4429]

I originally thought that I must have seen the play incorrectly because my initial thought was flagrant foul; shots and the ball. All the replays "seemed" to back that up, yet no call for the flagrant foul. In an earlier game, and I can't remember which one, as time was running down, I saw a player grab another player by the shirt to "foul" (he really yanked it). I am no expert, but I thought I heard a few weeks ago where that was considered an intentional foul and would result in shots and the ball. The call at the time, though, was just shots. It was a first round tournament game. Anyone else recall that, or am I lost in space?

[chris13]

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for picking on an old man.

[CMS2478]

I think the reason it was not called is bc the refs assumed the game was over and it wouldn't matter. No need to make Mr. Oden look bad by calling a flagrant. Unfortunately, it wasn' over and the flagrant foul was very important and the refs shouldn't have assumed anything and I'm sure they are kicking themselves afterwards.

You know what they say about assuming....

[dukeENG2003]

seems like the refs in this tournament are terrified of blowing the whistle on a flagrant or intentional in the closing minutes of a game, despite clear calls such as Oden.

Did anyone else watch the Tennessee-UVA game? Cain WITHOUT a DOUBT should have been whistled for a T (for jumping up grabbing the rim, swinging back around, and hacking a guy), but the refs didn't want to "decide" the game by blowing a T there (it should be noted that the G-man correctly pointed this out before even seeing the replay, where it was much mroe obvious).

I applaud the "let the players decide it on the floor" attitude, but I think they are taking it a bit far, if the players commit an act worthy of a flagrant or a T, just b/c its the end of the game doesn't justify letting this sort of behavior go

(cough cough, maynor hitting Scheyer in the face, cough cough. . .although I guess I'll admit that wasn't T/flagrant worthy, maybe just a regular foul would have been nice, did the "not wanting to decide the game with a whistle" logic figure in the refs mind there though?)

[feldspar]

I don't know why I'm constantly being forced to defend the refs. But, I can't ignore the statements being made in this thread.

I don't know a ref out there who ever goes into an end-game situation thinking "well, this one's over with, might as well not call intentional fouls." In fact, officials conference during the time-outs in the last minute to talk about these exact type of scenarios. They talk about where they should each be positioned to accurately make calls, they talk about who is in charge of seeing what (foot on the 3pt line, shot off before clock/buzzer/light, etc) and they talk about the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you accuse them of. They routinely discuss not calling a game any differently just because the game is in the final seconds.

That being said, you better be D-A-M-N sure that you get a call right if it's in the last few seconds and you know it's going to have an impact on the outcome of the game.

That foul at the end was borderline intentional, IMO, ESPECIALLY because of where the Lead official was positioned, and ESPECIALLY because in the course of committing the foul, Oden was clearly going for the ball. If it's borderline, most officials, myself included, are going to err on the side of not calling the egregious fouls. In fact, that is the spirit of the intentional foul rule. If it's obvious that the player was not making a play on the ball and committed an egregious foul, he has committed an intentional foul. I don't believe that happened here.

And again, if you're going to open the can of worms that is "he swallowed his whistle on purpose," you're going to have to accept the "Duke gets all the calls" argument. And I don't think you wanna go there. It's the same logic.

[dukeENG2003]

eh, I never meant to say they intentionally swallowed their whistle (I never mentioned that they were doing ANY of this on purpose or even consciously), but he did lift the guy off the ground, intentional fouls can be called for not making a play on the ball OR for "excessive contact". In Odens defense, he is just way stronger than he may know, so perhaps that played into that call as well.

[feldspar]

eh, I never meant to say they intentionally swallowed their whistle, but he did lift the guy off the ground, intentional fouls can be called for not making a play on the ball OR for "excessive contact". In Odens defense, he is just way stronger than he may know, so perhaps that played into that call as well.

Point is, the suggestion that officials have ulterior motives for making - or not making - calls is just plain silly. They don't gain anything by doing this. In fact, they can lose out on the opportunity for advancement and big games if they're found to be doing it.

Ref conspiracy theories really irk me. They exist at EVERY level. I was doing a church league game just the other week where I was accused of trying to call the game favorably for the visiting team. People see things the way they want to see them.

[dukeENG2003]

your misunderstanding my point, I'm not saying this is a conspiracy on their part, more an honest mistake

the "let the players decide the outcome" was NEVER anything started by officials, but rather by fans and media, and I was only implying that it was a mistake on their parts to let some of this mode of thinking creep into the way they called games (more than likely subconsciously). Again, NOT intentional, not a conspiracy, just a human mistake.

Sure, refs don't engage in conspiracies, but they also aren't perfect and don't always make the right calls, for whatever reason

[feldspar]

Sure, refs don't engage in conspiracies, but they also aren't perfect and don't always make the right calls, for whatever reason

We can certainly agree here. I don't think you'll EVER find an official that can say he's ever called a perfect game. They shouldn't be expected to.

I was only implying that it was a mistake on their parts to let some of this mode of thinking creep into the way they called games (more than likely subconsciously). Again, NOT intentional, not a conspiracy, just a human mistake.

I understand what you're saying, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with your premise. I find it more likely that the calling official legitimately did not feel like the contact warranted an intentional foul. If that is the case, I'm willing to accept his judgmenet, because he has more rules knowledge (and history of application) than everyone who has posted in this thread combined.

[Indoor66]

I think the reason it was not called is bc the refs assumed the game was over and it wouldn't matter. No need to make Mr. Oden look bad by calling a flagrant. Unfortunately, it wasn' over and the flagrant foul was very important and the refs shouldn't have assumed anything and I'm sure they are kicking themselves afterwards.

You know what they say about assuming....

Yeah, they call you Nifong

[dukeENG2003]

he has more rules knowledge (and history of application) than everyone who has posted in this thread combined.

point conceeded, however, I don't think its a crazy assertion that fear of criticism for deciding the game with a whistle would (on a subconscious level mind you) effect his ability to correctly evaluate the situation (as in the case of the UT-UVA game, where there is no question that they missed the call that should have made the rest of the game a moot point). Its also possible that they just screwed that one up though, your criticism of my initial post is warranted and understood.

[Duke76]

He sure didn't look to me like he was going for the ball. I did not see the replay because TV did not replay it but it sure looked like Oden pushed the guy squarely in the back with both hands. Must have been trying to get to the ball directly through his chest. Never been done before but I guess theoretically possible.

[feldspar]

He sure didn't look to me like he was going for the ball. I did not see the replay because TV did not replay it but it sure looked like Oden pushed the guy squarely in the back with both hands. Must have been trying to get to the ball directly through his chest. Never been done before but I guess theoretically possible.

Sorry, but you're flat wrong. The Xavier player was facing Oden when the foul occured.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdK4qdJXGbU

The foul occurs at the :50 mark.

[dukeENG2003]

the fact that he made a play on the ball is undisputable, the only way to justify a flagrant is the "excessive contact" rule, which is at best, a judgement call. Looked like it to me, but feldspar has a point, the ref was RIGHT there, he was on top of the play and had a far better angle than any camera did.

[jkidd31]

Sorry, but you're flat wrong. The Xavier player was facing Oden when the foul occured.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdK4qdJXGbU

The foul occurs at the :50 mark.

That looked like a combatitive foul to me.

[feldspar]

That looked like a combatitive foul to me.

So you think he should have gotten a flagrant foul and been ejected?

[Duke76]

he was trying to shove the ball through his chest, my bad