PDA

View Full Version : Was Austin fouled?



SoCalDukeFan
02-09-2012, 02:23 PM
http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2011-12/Games/Duke-85-UNC-84/21395157_bsR8XJ#!i=1704562145&k=t3RFMLd

A friend of mine who had no rooting interest in the game thinks he was.

Can you imagine if the shot had missed and the refs put Austin on the line for 3 shots?

GREAT WIN!!!!

SoCal

JNort
02-09-2012, 02:28 PM
http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2011-12/Games/Duke-85-UNC-84/21395157_bsR8XJ#!i=1704562145&k=t3RFMLd

A friend of mine who had no rooting interest in the game thinks he was.

Can you imagine if the shot had missed and the refs put Austin on the line for 3 shots?

GREAT WIN!!!!

SoCal

No not at all. The pics you are thinking of were way late. He shot and came down then Zeller may have scraped his pinkie finger. No foul

mickeysgotagun
02-09-2012, 02:28 PM
My guess is no. I think that picture linked is a perspective trick on the eyes.

hurleyfor3
02-09-2012, 02:29 PM
Is the hand still part of the ball once you let go of the ball?

Still, I wouldn't go there. Seth did get away with an, um, NBA-style stop-move on his three a few possessions earlier.

burnspbesq
02-09-2012, 02:34 PM
No foul here.

In the women's comeback win over UConn in 2004, Jess Foley was wiped out by Ann Strother on the game-winning three, and almost ended up in the lap of someone in the first row. She should have been put on the line with no time on the clock to complete the four-point play. This was nothing like that.

Jderf
02-09-2012, 02:34 PM
http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2011-12/Games/Duke-85-UNC-84/21395157_bsR8XJ#!i=1704562145&k=t3RFMLd

A friend of mine who had no rooting interest in the game thinks he was.

Can you imagine if the shot had missed and the refs put Austin on the line for 3 shots?

GREAT WIN!!!!

SoCal

In any case, there is no way on this Earth that any semi-sane refereee would ever make that call at the buzzer. Especially not against UNC. By that point, those whistles wouldn't have just been swallowed, they would be halfway through the ref's digestive tract.

tbyers11
02-09-2012, 02:35 PM
http://www.blueplanetshots.com/2011-12/Games/Duke-85-UNC-84/21395157_bsR8XJ#!i=1704562145&k=t3RFMLd

A friend of mine who had no rooting interest in the game thinks he was.

Can you imagine if the shot had missed and the refs put Austin on the line for 3 shots?

GREAT WIN!!!!

SoCal

I don't think so but my friend and I are both fairly certain that Ryan Kelly was fouled on his right hand by Henson on the 3-pointer that became Zeller's tip-in. Anybody have a good picture of that?

JNort
02-09-2012, 02:37 PM
Is the hand still part of the ball once you let go of the ball?

Still, I wouldn't go there. Seth did get away with an, um, NBA-style stop-move on his three a few possessions earlier.

Idk why people keep saying that. I have the game on DVR and have watched it in slow motion many times now and here is what happens.

1. Curry catches the ball and his first foot comes down (Right foot)
2. His second foot comes down farther forward than the first (Left foot)
3. Since he caught the ball and both feet have hit ground he has yet to move
4. He now lifts his right foot and puts it in front of the left
5. Left foot is his pivot foot and does not move
6. Curry shoots

weezie
02-09-2012, 03:13 PM
Can you imagine if the shot had missed and the refs put Austin on the line for 3 shots?


I imagine I'd still be glued to the den ceiling....which I am anyway.

gep
02-09-2012, 03:20 PM
To me, the replays after the shot really looked like a foul. But since the basket was made, no call. Now, if the shot missed, I'm not sure what would have happened. If in the normal course in a game, I would think a foul would have been called.

loran16
02-09-2012, 03:24 PM
After the Miami game, if he'd missed and the foul was called, I would've been kind of freaking out.

Lar77
02-09-2012, 03:29 PM
By Henson on the tip-in 3/2? Couldn't tell for sure by the replay, but it seemed like there was contact while the shot was in his hand.

But, then again, who cares? We won. The sun rose. All is right with the world.

CDu
02-09-2012, 03:34 PM
Idk why people keep saying that. I have the game on DVR and have watched it in slow motion many times now and here is what happens.

1. Curry catches the ball and his first foot comes down (Right foot)
2. His second foot comes down farther forward than the first (Left foot)
3. Since he caught the ball and both feet have hit ground he has yet to move
4. He now lifts his right foot and puts it in front of the left
5. Left foot is his pivot foot and does not move
6. Curry shoots

I think what you've just described IS a travel, though. His first (right) foot came down first and became the pivot foot. His second (left) foot was then the one that can move. By then picking up and placing down the right foot again, he traveled. Had both feet initially come down simultaneously, then it's not a travel (assuming the rest of your sequence is accurate and there were no other feet shuffles). But since his right foot came down clearly first, the pivot foot was established.

That said, that call is pretty rarely made. Austin Rivers gets away with something slightly similar nearly every time he catches a pass, for example. And he's by no means alone. The officials seem to give quite a bit of wiggle room on players landing with the ball, as long as they don't then immediately try to go to the basket.

And in any case, focusing on a single call is pointless. There were, I'm sure, countless calls that weren't called correctly (both ways), as is the nature of a difficult game to officiate. All of those calls/missed calls had an influence on the outcome as well.

AZLA
02-09-2012, 03:38 PM
I think what you've just described IS a travel, though. His first (right) foot came down first and became the pivot foot. His second (left) foot was then the one that can move. By then picking up and placing down the right foot again, he traveled. Had both feet initially come down simultaneously, then it's not a travel (assuming the rest of your sequence is accurate and there were no other feet shuffles). But since his right foot came down clearly first, the pivot foot was established.

That said, that call is pretty rarely made. Austin Rivers gets away with something slightly similar nearly every time he catches a pass, for example. And he's by no means alone. The officials seem to give quite a bit of wiggle room on players landing with the ball, as long as they don't then immediately try to go to the basket.

And in any case, focusing on a single call is pointless. There were, I'm sure, countless calls that weren't called correctly (both ways), as is the nature of a difficult game to officiate. All of those calls/missed calls had an influence on the outcome as well.


All I cared about was if he hit the shot.

He did.

I'm never concerned about "traveling" in the house the Hanstravel built.

CDu
02-09-2012, 03:42 PM
All I cared about was if he hit the shot.

He did.

I'm never concerned about "traveling" in the house the Hanstravel built.

Oh I agree completely. Had they called a travel, I'd have been fine with that (though sad). They didn't, and he nailed the subsequent shot (making me happy). End of story. Missed calls are a part of the game. They happen both ways.

uh_no
02-09-2012, 03:43 PM
I think what you've just described IS a travel, though. His first (right) foot came down first and became the pivot foot. His second (left) foot was then the one that can move. By then picking up and placing down the right foot again, he traveled. Had both feet initially come down simultaneously, then it's not a travel (assuming the rest of your sequence is accurate and there were no other feet shuffles). But since his right foot came down clearly first, the pivot foot was established.


That's incorrect (as far as I know....i'll look up the rule book later). If a foot has yet to hit the ground, it can't be considered moved until it hits the ground. Thus when his left foot hits the ground, it hasn't yet "moved" and thus can still be established as the pivot foot.

EDIT: I'm completely wrong (again)



Art. 3. A player who catches the ball while moving or dribbling may stop and
establish a pivot foot as follows:
a. When both feet are off the playing court and the player lands:
2. On one foot followed by the other, the first foot to touch shall be the
pivot foot;

wilko
02-09-2012, 03:43 PM
In any case, there is no way on this Earth that any semi-sane refereee would ever make that call at the buzzer. Especially not against UNC. By that point, those whistles wouldn't have just been swallowed, they would be halfway through the ref's digestive tract.

ONLY one way that call gets made, at that point in the game. 2 criteria must be met - non-negotiable
1) balled fist
2) blood

CDu
02-09-2012, 04:02 PM
That's incorrect (as far as I know....i'll look up the rule book later). If a foot has yet to hit the ground, it can't be considered moved until it hits the ground. Thus when his left foot hits the ground, it hasn't yet "moved" and thus can still be established as the pivot foot.

EDIT: I'm completely wrong (again)

On top of the travel that I described, he also appears to shuffle the right foot (kind of a skip) before he ever puts the left foot down. I think that's also a travel. So it was a double travel. He shuffles the right (pivot) foot before placing the left foot down, and then lifts the right foot and places it down to go up for the shot.

But again, the refs almost never call that as a guy is settling on a caught pass (at any time in the game). It's only if he then tries to attack off the dribble before establishing the dribble that they make that call.

lotusland
02-09-2012, 04:23 PM
That's incorrect (as far as I know....i'll look up the rule book later). If a foot has yet to hit the ground, it can't be considered moved until it hits the ground. Thus when his left foot hits the ground, it hasn't yet "moved" and thus can still be established as the pivot foot.

EDIT: I'm completely wrong (again)

It was not a travel because Duke does not travel. I've explained this all day to my tar heel buddies but they just can't get it through their thick heads. They keep getting bogged down about rule book minutia and step counting instead of accepting the higher order.

DukieInBrasil
02-09-2012, 04:43 PM
Idk why people keep saying that. I have the game on DVR and have watched it in slow motion many times now and here is what happens.

1. Curry catches the ball and his first foot comes down (Right foot)
2. His second foot comes down farther forward than the first (Left foot)
3. Since he caught the ball and both feet have hit ground he has yet to move
4. He now lifts his right foot and puts it in front of the left
5. Left foot is his pivot foot and does not move
6. Curry shoots

It was not a travel, you're right. It could also be seen as a step-into jump stop since both feet don't have to hit at precisely the same moment, just that the first (step-into) foot must not be connected to the floor when the 1st foot of the jump stop hits the floor.

OldPhiKap
02-09-2012, 04:44 PM
Technically, I think it was a touch foul after the release. Yes he made contact with the shooter, no it didn't affect the shot. Regardless, would never be called in the last shot of the game, especially last night.

CDu
02-09-2012, 04:55 PM
It was not a travel, you're right. It could also be seen as a step-into jump stop since both feet don't have to hit at precisely the same moment, just that the first (step-into) foot must not be connected to the floor when the 1st foot of the jump stop hits the floor.

No, it definitely was a travel. You can't step into a jump stop. The feet need to land virtually simultaneously for it to be a jump stop, which was far from the case here.

He actually traveled twice, although the first travel would have been a VERY nitpicky call. He kind of hopped on his pivot foot after he caught the ball (a very small hop/shuffle, hence why that'd have been a really nitpicky call). Then, he traveled again when he shifted his pivot foot to his left foot (picking up and placing down his right foot again).

Thankfully, though, it wasn't called and we won. And that's all that matters.

Albert
02-09-2012, 05:04 PM
The UNC fans' hanging their collective hat on this "Curry traveled" meme rather reminds me of the recent documentary about Bartman and Buckner, the point of which was basically that two crazed and dejected fan bases blew a single incident, that was nothing like the sole cause of their misfortune, wildly out of proportion, as if, without it, victory would have been theirs.

Duke scored three points on that trip down the court. The fallacious argument seems to be, the refs' failure to call the obvious travel (I thought he skipped one of his feet, but, whatever) led to three points for Duke, without which favoritism UNC would have won.

Except, that Duke scored three points because a) Curry made a three point basket (to be fair, UNC made one at one point last night as well), which was related to b) there being no UNC defender anywhere nearby to intervene. Add further silly reasoning that the remainder of the game would have proceeded exactly as it did in reality, only with Duke scoring three fewer points, et voila, you have an extremely silly persecution complex.

Coming from Carolina, which, as we all know, is especially rich.

1999ballboy
02-09-2012, 05:16 PM
If Austin was fouled on that play, then Ryan was DEFINITELY fouled in OT of the Miami game.

In other words: no.

rasputin
02-09-2012, 05:27 PM
If Austin was fouled on that play, then Ryan was DEFINITELY fouled in OT of the Miami game.

In other words: no.

If Ryan had been fouled in that OT period, it would have changed our FT stat to 0-9.:rolleyes:

Duke4life92
02-09-2012, 06:08 PM
Well in my opinion several missed calls either way but the 3 pts(if taken away by curry)could have been easily made up with that bogus goaltend call on mason on zeller's shot in first half (which he clearly blocked)take those 2 away from the holes and then kelly was hit on hand(hence the way off line shot that zeller tipped in(thx tyman!)so ryan could have went to line for the extra pt.therefore making up for the 3 curry got that tarholes claim should'nt have counted.See it would have all worked out the same.:D:cool:

uh_no
02-09-2012, 06:09 PM
It was not a travel, you're right. It could also be seen as a step-into jump stop since both feet don't have to hit at precisely the same moment, just that the first (step-into) foot must not be connected to the floor when the 1st foot of the jump stop hits the floor.

You are incorrect. Please see my post which quotes the rulebook, which specifically states that if both feet do not hit the ground at the same time, the first foot to hit is necessarily the pivot foot.

fan345678
02-09-2012, 07:26 PM
Is the hand still part of the ball once you let go of the ball?

Still, I wouldn't go there. Seth did get away with an, um, NBA-style stop-move on his three a few possessions earlier.

I'd say it was more Hansbroughnian in nature

JNort
02-09-2012, 09:07 PM
I think what you've just described IS a travel, though. His first (right) foot came down first and became the pivot foot. His second (left) foot was then the one that can move. By then picking up and placing down the right foot again, he traveled. Had both feet initially come down simultaneously, then it's not a travel (assuming the rest of your sequence is accurate and there were no other feet shuffles). But since his right foot came down clearly first, the pivot foot was established.

That said, that call is pretty rarely made. Austin Rivers gets away with something slightly similar nearly every time he catches a pass, for example. And he's by no means alone. The officials seem to give quite a bit of wiggle room on players landing with the ball, as long as they don't then immediately try to go to the basket.

And in any case, focusing on a single call is pointless. There were, I'm sure, countless calls that weren't called correctly (both ways), as is the nature of a difficult game to officiate. All of those calls/missed calls had an influence on the outcome as well.


I believe you would normally be right but I was under the impression that when you run full speed and catch it you are usually allowed that extra step/or 2nd foot as the pivot foot

CDu
02-09-2012, 09:23 PM
I believe you would normally be right but I was under the impression that when you run full speed and catch it you are usually allowed that extra step/or 2nd foot as the pivot foot

The refs frequently don't call it. That doesn't mean it is not a travel according to the rules. Sometimes the refs wre just lenient. In this case, they were very lenient as he technically travelled twice.