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.

[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.

[MulletMan]

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.


Perhaps I missed something then... unfortunately, I did not record the game. I'll have to take your word on it.

[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.

[bjornolf]

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.


I went back about twenty times on my TiVo, watching at full speed and in slo-mo, trying to figure out how it was a foul on Singler. It looked to me like Singler had perfect rebound position on a player who was facing AWAY from the basket, possibly looking for the ball. When the shot went up, it looked like he swung his left arm over Singler's shoulder and down along his body, trying to hold him down. When Singler jumped for the rebound, he over-balanced the Wisconsin player, sending him to the ground. To me, that's a foul on the Wisconsin player, NOT Singler. Then, trying to maintain HIS balance and not fall on the Wisconsin guy lying at his feet, Singler bopped into the second Wisconsin player and got shoved for his trouble. He then tripped over said original Wisconsin player and fell on his butt. That's how I saw it.

[rthomas]

Perhaps I missed something then... unfortunately, I did not record the game. I'll have to take your word on it.

It's recorded on ESPN360, if you get that.

[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!!! :D

[calltheobvious]

I went back about twenty times on my TiVo, watching at full speed and in slo-mo, trying to figure out how it was a foul on Singler. It looked to me like Singler had perfect rebound position on a player who was facing AWAY from the basket, possibly looking for the ball. When the shot went up, it looked like he swung his left arm over Singler's shoulder and down along his body, trying to hold him down. When Singler jumped for the rebound, he over-balanced the Wisconsin player, sending him to the ground. To me, that's a foul on the Wisconsin player, NOT Singler. Then, trying to maintain HIS balance and not fall on the Wisconsin guy lying at his feet, Singler bopped into the second Wisconsin player and got shoved for his trouble. He then tripped over said original Wisconsin player and fell on his butt. That's how I saw it.

Honestly, all this hand-wringing over the Singler foul is a little silly. Where's the outrage over the foul on the Wiscy guard who had the audacity to be directly in Henderson's path when DeMarcus threw Gerald the alley toward the end of the first half?

The crew missed some plays last night. Some went for Duke, some went against Duke. Nothing to see here.

[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? :D

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.

[Clipsfan]

Honestly, all this hand-wringing over the Singler foul is a little silly. Where's the outrage over the foul on the Wiscy guard who had the audacity to be directly in Henderson's path when DeMarcus threw Gerald the alley toward the end of the first half?

The crew missed some plays last night. Some went for Duke, some went against Duke. Nothing to see here.

True enough. I thought that there were quite a few bad calls in the game (as well as in the GT game before it) and you just have to hope that you get at least your fair share of them. I think that we did have enough of them go our way last night (the one mentioned above seemed an awful call as well that went in our favor). The main thing is that our team played really well.

[jjasper0729]

there were several bad calls for both sides. the call against smith in the first half was bad against us (the charging call). but there was a call that we got when gerald went over the back of a wisconsin guy who had him blocked out and they called the fall on the badger.

i thought it was pretty much a wash in the foul department.

[77devil]

Agree that there were incorrect calls against both teams that largely balanced out. The foul on Singler before the technical was definitely a mistake imho. My thoughts at the time was that the refs. conceeded it to Wisconsin because of the technical and Bo Ryans histrionics.

Dickie V and his partner were babbling on before the play about nothing connected to the game, as usual, and seemed totally unaware that a T had been called or whatelse was happening while the refs. conferred. Dickie was worse than usual.

[feldspar]

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.

Correct. This happened in a Gonzaga game just the other day I was watching.

The intentional technical made it so Duke got the ball back.

On another vein, I was surprised at the intentional foul called as Singler was driving to the basket in the second half. Looked to me like the Wisconsin player went for the ball. Ref had a different angle, though.

[jjasper0729]

it was the right call. The badger went for his arms (upper arms) to hold singler down before he could start the motion to go up. there was no intent to go after the ball, but also no intent to harm, just keep him from going up.

[gvtucker]

Honestly, all this hand-wringing over the Singler foul is a little silly. Where's the outrage over the foul on the Wiscy guard who had the audacity to be directly in Henderson's path when DeMarcus threw Gerald the alley toward the end of the first half?

The crew missed some plays last night. Some went for Duke, some went against Duke. Nothing to see here.

I don't see any outrage over the bad call regarding Singler. There was a question asked, and the question was answered, that's all.

In regards to the other play you reference, yeah, that was a bad call, too. But that wasn't the question asked.

[mapei]

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

Talk about Too Much Information . . .

[The Gordog]

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.

I think it's basic psychology. They were going to call the intentional technical on Wisc, so they made the "could go either way" call go against Duke. It's not right. It's probably not conscious. But, that's what happens.

[feldspar]

it was the right call. The badger went for his arms (upper arms) to hold singler down before he could start the motion to go up. there was no intent to go after the ball, but also no intent to harm, just keep him from going up.

FWIW, ESPN had really, really bad camera angles on a lot of the big plays last night. This was one example. From the angle I saw, it looked like he went for the ball, but if what you're describing is what happened, then it was indeed a good call.

They totally screwed up Markie's big jam in the second half, too.

[jjasper0729]

I don't see any outrage over the bad call regarding Singler. There was a question asked, and the question was answered, that's all.

In regards to the other play you reference, yeah, that was a bad call, too. But that wasn't the question asked.

To be honest, there were a lot of bad calls. However, if you're going to be outraged at one, it should be the one that went against Nolan Smith in the first half when he was called for a charge.

I thought on that one, if the ref doesn't call a block, it should be a no-call. Nolan didn't initiate any contact, in fact, he turned and slid sideways on the layup attempt to try to NOT draw contact.

But I digress...

[calltheobvious]

I don't see any outrage over the bad call regarding Singler. There was a question asked, and the question was answered, that's all.

In regards to the other play you reference, yeah, that was a bad call, too. But that wasn't the question asked.

Fair enough, GV. "Outrage" was certainly a poor choice of words. I think I've probably become a little bit cynical about Duke fans carping on officiating, and I'm becoming decreasingly able to sort the I-have-a-legitimate-question form of complaint from the hmmm-this-looks-awfully-suspicious brand. I concede that I overreacted in this case.

FWIW, I saw two plays last night that I thought were poor, and the Singler tangle was not one of them (that doesn't mean I agree with the ruling). I thought the PC on Nolan was really marginal, as I thought Smith made a fantastic athletic move to slide across the defender's chest without doing much at all to displace him. The other play was the foul against the Wiscy guard on the oop.

I just felt like if we were going to talk plays, we needed to include one that went in our favor. Obviously, though, that's only true if one's hypothesis is that there's something sinister going on. I jumped to a bad conclusion, I've apologized, everybody's happy. Nothing to see here.

Cheers.

[EarlJam]

To be honest, there were a lot of bad calls. However, if you're going to be outraged at one, it should be the one that went against Nolan Smith in the first half when he was called for a charge.

I thought on that one, if the ref doesn't call a block, it should be a no-call. Nolan didn't initiate any contact, in fact, he turned and slid sideways on the layup attempt to try to NOT draw contact.

But I digress...

Agreed, and Coach K's reaction was classic - one of his more animated "non-angry" reactions. More of total disbelief.

-EarlJam

[bjornolf]

Honestly, all this hand-wringing over the Singler foul is a little silly. Where's the outrage over the foul on the Wiscy guard who had the audacity to be directly in Henderson's path when DeMarcus threw Gerald the alley toward the end of the first half?

The crew missed some plays last night. Some went for Duke, some went against Duke. Nothing to see here.

I wasn't outraged or hand-wringing. I was confused. Since the commentators never addressed the foul, I just assumed that Singler had fouled him and that I was somehow missing it. The commentators were just like "there's what Singler did, and there's the shove". I just couldn't find anything Singler did wrong. In fact, it looked more like the other guy had fouled Singler. So, like I said, I was more trying to correct my ignorance than to gripe about the foul. My immediate reaction was "wow, it looked to me like Singler got fouled twice" and I just couldn't see it. I guess I expected the commentators to say something about what Singler did wrong, or how it was a bad call. They're always pointing out hooks that don't get called, and this looked like the king of hooks to me, over the shoulder. Anyway, I figured you guys could point out to me what I was missing.

[dukeENG2003]

Agreed, and Coach K's reaction was classic - one of his more animated "non-angry" reactions. More of total disbelief.

-EarlJam

My favorite was when the crazies started the "I'm blind, I'm deaf, I wanna be a ref" chant, and K applauded". It was at some point during the string of 4 consecutive fouls. Classic.

As far as the intentional goes, from my angle (front row of the grad student section, on the side of the court where the foul occurred), it looked pretty clear that there was no intent to go for the ball, just to keep Singler from elevating. As another said, no intent to harm, but no real try for the ball.

[Virginian]

As has been pointed out, there were numerous questionable calls, including the alley-oop call that went against Wisc. But I think it sorta evened out for both teams by the end of the game.

But just to add to the discussion, I thought the foul that bloodied Singler was particularly egregious. I didn't get a good look from the replay but it seemed to me the Wisconsin player basically just took a shot at Kyle's head and didn't get close to the ball. The fact that Singler crashed to floor and rose up covered in blood reminded me of the Henderson smashup of TH that everyone made such a big deal of in last year's UNC game.

No one seemed to think anything of this one though. Maybe it wasn't that bad in "real life" but the end result was pretty severe for Singler. He jumped right back into the game, though, which was fierce. I loved it.

Wisconsin is typical of that league -- big bruising heavyweights who throw punches the entire game. I don't usually like close-called games, but I thought the refs overall did a decent job of keeping the game honest and didn't let it get out-of-hand physically. Which is why (I believe) they called that technical on the Duke layup -- they didn't want it to lead to fisticuffs all over the floor since it was clear the Duke players were getting steamed by the rough play on Wisconsin's part.

It could have been a really nasty game, but it wasn't. A few bad calls on each team were not that big a price to pay for that, I think.

[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.

[SMO]

there were several bad calls for both sides. the call against smith in the first half was bad against us (the charging call). but there was a call that we got when gerald went over the back of a wisconsin guy who had him blocked out and they called the fall on the badger.

i thought it was pretty much a wash in the foul department.

The officials are definitely in early season form. There must be an initiative to call more because the whistle is blowing a lot. The decisions on charges vs. blocks have been poor in a number of cases. I really hope it shapes up because there have been too many WTF calls in the first few weeks.

[phaedrus]

Wisconsin is typical of that league -- big bruising heavyweights who throw punches the entire game.

I don't think so. They have lots of height, but Butch is far from a bruiser and Leuer looks like he weights about as much as me, despite being 7 feet tall. Stiemsma is about as blue-collar as it gets for them, and even he is not exactly beefy.

[dukeENG2003]

But just to add to the discussion, I thought the foul that bloodied Singler was particularly egregious. I didn't get a good look from the replay but it seemed to me the Wisconsin player basically just took a shot at Kyle's head and didn't get close to the ball. The fact that Singler crashed to floor and rose up covered in blood reminded me of the Henderson smashup of TH that everyone made such a big deal of in last year's UNC game.

No one seemed to think anything of this one though. Maybe it wasn't that bad in "real life" but the end result was pretty severe for Singler.

I keep commenting, only b/c I had a good view of all of these incidents, but I didn't think this one was that bad. The results was bad, yes, but it was a clean, hard foul. I thought the T and the flagrant were much worse (and called accordingly).

The officials weren't any worse than they always are IMO. It was even, which is all you can really ask for.

[Virginian]

I don't think so. They have lots of height, but Butch is far from a bruiser and Leuer looks like he weights about as much as me, despite being 7 feet tall. Stiemsma is about as blue-collar as it gets for them, and even he is not exactly beefy.

Well, your mileage may vary of course, but I'm talking about an entire league over the last 15-20 years. Pointing out that Wisconsin has one skinny kid doesn't strike me as a tremendously convincing counter-argument. Just looking at the size of Wisconsin vs. the size of the Duke players and noticing the plodding, bang-em-up-in-the-middle approach of Wisconsin would lend credence to the "beefy" style I'm referring to. And I do think that Butch really does look like a bruiser compared to any and all Duke players. Is there any Duke player that has his size or bulk? Seems to me just about every Big 10 team in the last dozen years has had players like him. But again, just my opinion.

[Virginian]

I keep commenting, only b/c I had a good view of all of these incidents, but I didn't think this one was that bad. The results was bad, yes, but it was a clean, hard foul. I thought the T and the flagrant were much worse (and called accordingly).

The officials weren't any worse than they always are IMO. It was even, which is all you can really ask for.

Thanks for the courtside report and info. I agree the officiating seemed even. There were questionable calls on both sides, but I wouldn't complain about the officiating overall.

[feldspar]

I agree the officiating seemed even.

I've seen this terminology used several times in this thread, and I'm still not exactly sure what it's supposed to mean.

[Virginian]

I've seen this terminology used several times in this thread, and I'm still not exactly sure what it's supposed to mean.

Well, it could mean several things depending on the context. Someone might be referring to the fact that there were an equal number of fouls called on each team. In my case I was referring to the "fact" that in my opinion there were a number of questionable calls made on each team. I didn't notice that either team bore the brunt of bad calls or numbers of calls, IOW "even."

[feldspar]

Well, it could mean several things depending on the context. Someone might be referring to the fact that there were an equal number of fouls called on each team. In my case I was referring to the "fact" that in my opinion there were a number of questionable calls made on each team. I didn't notice that either team bore the brunt of bad calls or numbers of calls, IOW "even."

I see. I understand the second one. As for the first, I've never been able to figure out why in the world people think the number of fouls should be even for each team.

[Virginian]

I see. I understand the second one. As for the first, I've never been able to figure out why in the world people think the number of fouls should be even for each team.

I agree completely. But we've all seen how some fans react when their team gets hit with significantly more fouls than Duke. There are reasons for that but that doesn't assuage the angry fans, who find it easier to blame supposedly biased or intimidated refs for their team's loss to Duke.