That final 24 seconds

[GoBigRed]

feel like it deserves its own thread...

 

Just what else can go wrong for Nebraska basketball? Ubel has a guy fouling him all over his back. First of all, that should have been called. Second of all, he is holding the ball up above his head and has a player all over his front right up under his chin. What is he supposed to do exactly? How do you get out of that situation without traveling. The replay shows the guy behind him is hacking at the ball so he has to bring the ball down away from that defender's reach. There was nothing "flagrant" at all about that movement. Knowing what kind of kid Brandon is makes it even that much more difficult. If it were Peltz, ok. But Ubel would never do anything like that fragrantly.

 

Pathetic officiating at best. The WORST part is because they didn't call it live, they let play continue and we fouled Penn State a few seconds later. 4 free throws AND the ball. If the referee had called it right when it happened, 2 free throws and the ball. That hardly seems logical that you can go back and review something like that and drastically change the game. If someone has a toe on the line late in the game, they'll stop the game and review it right away, not wait until a dead ball to back and watch it. If the ref thought there was an elbow, the game should be stopped and 2 free throws and ball issued to Penn State. That crap about letting play continue then looking at it later is illogical.

[Huskerpapa]

It was an unbelievable/crazy sequence.  I suppose they got the call right in theory, but I am not even convinced Ubel made contact.  I am glad Penn State cooperated by missing a boat load of FT's thereafter!

[GoBigRed]

Just trying to prove how illogical it is:

 

Say the situation is different. We are up 2 and there are 40 seconds left when Ubel "throws an elbow". Instead of turning it over, we go down and miss a shot and Penn State rebounds. They run down and hit a buzzer beater to tie the game. Now that there is a deadball, do the refs go back and watch the play where Ubel "threw an elbow" and award Penn State 2 free throws, thus ending the game when they make 1 to win it? Same exact philosophy just different circumstances.

[nustudent]

It's illogical but it's also the rules.   The refs were technically correct in that part.

 

That being said....it's an absolutely ridiculously stupid rule and concept.

[tcp]

Apparently this is the Tuck Rule for college hoops.

[TheKamdyMan]

I hate the continuation of the play rule.  If they have the ability to go back and call a foul they should take everything back to that point.

 

also somebody should have told homeboy the golden globes were last week no more awards giving out for that acting.

[NUdiehard]

It's illogical but it's also the rules.   The refs were technically correct in that part.

 

That being said....it's an absolutely ridiculously stupid rule and concept.

It is an absolutely stupid rule.  However, the call in the game was not correct.  Ubel did not hit him with his elbow.  No contact was made., missed him by a good 2 or 3 inches.  It was an obvious flop and acting job by the Penn St. player.  I can understand if the ref had called the flagrant foul live, b/c things happen fast.  But it is completely unacceptable to go to the replay and not be able to discern a flop from real contact.  

[husker8282]

is Chambers the one that asked to get the play reviewed, does the coach have to be the one to ask for the review? 

[cipsucks]

Had Penn State not missed all those free throws down the stretch, that ugly 3 pointer they made to end the first half would have decided the game.

 

It's a pleasant surprise we overcame all that to get a win.

[49r]

They were talking about this on Gameday this morning, Brad Stevens and Mark Few both said that coaches are teaching their kids to take advantage of this rule, to get right up on the guy on the ball and harass them.  Once the elbows go up, fall down immediately.  The reasoning is because refs refuse to call the contact foul on the defender, no matter how close they get, but they have no choice but to call the flagrant on the elbow.

 

It's a bad rule and they need to fix it.

[hhcscott]

I was working on the report card while this discussion was going on. Check out the section on the officiating at the end, nice to see we're thinking alike.

[Bugeaters1]

It's illogical but it's also the rules.   The refs were technically correct in that part.

 

That being said....it's an absolutely ridiculously stupid rule and concept.

It is an absolutely stupid rule.  However, the call in the game was not correct.  Ubel did not hit him with his elbow.  No contact was made., missed him by a good 2 or 3 inches.  It was an obvious flop and acting job by the Penn St. player.  I can understand if the ref had called the flagrant foul live, b/c things happen fast.  But it is completely unacceptable to go to the replay and not be able to discern a flop from real contact.  

[huskerhook]

It was an unbelievable/crazy sequence.  I suppose they got the call right in theory, but I am not even convinced Ubel made contact.  I am glad Penn State cooperated by missing a boat load of FT's thereafter!

BALL DON'T LIE

[nustudent]

They were talking about this on Gameday this morning, Brad Stevens and Mark Few both said that coaches are teaching their kids to take advantage of this rule, to get right up on the guy on the ball and harass them.  Once the elbows go up, fall down immediately.  The reasoning is because refs refuse to call the contact foul on the defender, no matter how close they get, but they have no choice but to call the flagrant on the elbow.

 

It's a bad rule and they need to fix it.

Unfortunately they won't

Just like some of the ridiculous rules in football about hard hits.

 

Everyone is so worried about concussions anymore and making the game safer...they invent ridiculous rules like this.

[jimmykc]

Last 24 seconds pretty much solidify the concept of karma.

[cozrulz]

The continuation part is what gets me, technically it was the right call but was as soft as it gets.  One thing about the sequence...Ubel shouldn't have been swinging the ball in the first place.  Good way to turn it over which is what happened.

 

In some sense I wonder if the stoppage of play actually hurt the little momentum of Penn State.  Of course going 1 for 6 from the line didn't help but those refs completely changed the game/game flow.  Good thing it didn't change the outcome.

[royalfan]

Completely idiotic rule.  I cannot even comprehend how someone was dumb enough to come up with it. 

[hhcscott]

Completely idiotic rule.  I cannot even comprehend how someone was dumb enough to come up with it. 

I'm guessing they had been elbowed to the head too many times.

[uneblinstu]

A lot of it stemmed from this play.  They're trying to avoid this sort of incident.  And they probably went too far in trying to enforce it, but this is what they're trying to avoid.

 

[ajb5856]

I get the idea of the rule and its probably a good rule. The problem is, before yesterday's game, I don't think I've ever seen a review for above the shoulder contact on a play where no call was made to begin with. It makes sense to me that for a foul to be reviewed and assessed either a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 distinction, that a foul would have to be called in the first place. That would eliminate the continuation stupidity. Or else they need to rewind the clock to the point of the ruling, disregarding any action occurring afterward just as they do in football.

[royalfan]

I get the idea of the rule and its probably a good rule. The problem is, before yesterday's game, I don't think I've ever seen a review for above the shoulder contact on a play where no call was made to begin with. It makes sense to me that for a foul to be reviewed and assessed either a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 distinction, that a foul would have to be called in the first place. That would eliminate the continuation stupidity. Or else they need to rewind the clock to the point of the ruling, disregarding any action occurring afterward just as they do in football.

 

 

How can it be a good rule, yet you described exactly why it an incredibly stupid rule?

[HuskerBB]

I agree that the rule is wrong - and an overreaction to players using elbows aggressively.  Officials were correct in the initial no call on Ubel in this case - and thus there should have been no change from the review.  But this anti-elbow rule does not give them that discretion.

 

The continuation rule seems very strange as well.  But lets reverse the situation - assume we had made a pass downcourt and scored a layup prior to the clock stoppage and the resulting review.  If they had taken away that basket we would probably be arguing just as strongly about that being wrong.

 

Answer as some have suggested is that you should not make a call from a review if no call was made in live action.  To me if the refs don't make a call on the elbow use in game action the only recourse from a review should be ejection of the player if the act is truly intentional and flagrent (which it obviously was not in this case).

[ajb5856]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="royalfan" data-cid="13074" data-time="1358705624"><p>

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="ajb5856" data-cid="13069" data-time="1358702151"><p>I get the idea of the rule and its probably a good rule. The problem is, before yesterday's game, I don't think I've ever seen a review for above the shoulder contact on a play where no call was made to begin with. It makes sense to me that for a foul to be reviewed and assessed either a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 distinction, that a foul would have to be called in the first place. That would eliminate the continuation stupidity. Or else they need to rewind the clock to the point of the ruling, disregarding any action occurring afterward just as they do in football.</p></blockquote>

<br />

<br />

How can it be a good rule, yet you described exactly why it an incredibly stupid rule?</p></blockquote>

What I meant which didn't come across well is that I think the idea behind the rule, which is protecting players' heads, is a good idea. So while the intent of the rule is good the way it is enforced has many flaws. All the way from the continuation thing to players flopping to draw the call.

[trickey]

If the rules would make a flop a technical foul...it would help stop a lot of the acting...and reviews.

[Dean Smith]

If the rules would make a flop a technical foul...it would help stop a lot of the acting...and reviews.

Unless they've changed the rules, a flop can be called a technical for simulation.