NCAA Statement on the Charge Aaron Craft Drew Against Iowa State's Will Clyburn

March 24, 2013 at 4:32p    by Jason Priestas    
The NCAA issued a statement on the controversial charge call Aaron Craft drew late against Iowa State.

Courtesy of FOX-59/Indianapolis sports anchor Chris Hagan comes the official NCAA response to what some are calling a controversial late charging call on Iowa State's Will Clyburn.

The statement, from John Adams, NCAA National Coordinator of Men's Basketball Officiating:

I spoke with the official and he determined the defender established legal guarding position outside the restricted area prior to the offensive player leaving the floor to start his shot. When asked, the official said he did not see the defender's foot over the restricted area line. By rule, this is not a reviewable play.

The funny thing about the "charge that wasn't" – Craft missed the front end of a 1-and1 and Iowa State had the ball in a tie game with :58 to go and... turned it over.

Then, Iowa State allowed Ohio State to grab an offensive rebound and play for the last shot. That call didn't cost Iowa State the game. Iowa State cost Iowa State the game. 

For more, here's video of John Adams on the CBS set following the game.



Ohio1St81's picture

I am dumbfounded by the outrage and the debate over this call. One foul does not win or lose a game one way or the other. 

abrahajc's picture

it is really making me think. I know charles had Iowa state in his bracket--they showed it online.  But why is one block/charge call getting so much media coverage?

Toilrt Paper's picture

Knowing Chuck and his disease he probably had $50,000 on the game.

Jonnferrell's picture

Nice post, Chris.  To quote Count Ryanula--"Deal with it."

"I miss Brady Hoke."

AngryWoody's picture

This whole thing reminds me of this.

Our Honor Defend!

dubjayfootball90's picture

yes, sir


Maffro's picture

I'm saving this image.

Hovenaut's picture

Well, look at that.



mitchjacobsen01's picture

I didn't think it really even needed a response.  I've seen much more controversial calls go largely ignored.

AngryWoody's picture

But, but, but Sir Charles said it was a bad call!

Our Honor Defend!

M Man's picture

I'm confused.  Why did this one call need a written response from NCAA officiating?  Was it because some in-studio television personalities said it was a bad call?  That's no reason.  Was it because Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg described the rule inaccurately?  I'm not so sure that they did.  I really don't understand this kerfuffle.  Here are the facts as I saw them:

  1. Craft's position was established outside of the lane arc, when he was contacted by the shooter.  TV had a good angle; it seemed pretty clear.  Is there a rule that makes Craft inside the arc?  Is it because Craft's heel subsequently came down inside the arc?  (A lot of guys who take a charge down low end up with a lot more parts of their anatomy inside the little arc.)
  2. I do think that Craft's position was established late.  That would be the reason I'd complain about the call.  But that's a judgment, and there were a half-dozen "judgments" that went against OSU earlier in the game.  That's not being subjected to any review either.  That's weak sauce, for any major complaint.
  3. The call had more impact than what some of the Buckeye faithful are willing to allow.  True, Craft promptly missed the front end of a 1-and-1, with the rebound to Iowa State and the overall effect of the call being diminished.  But if reversed, a Cyclone basket would have counted with an and-1 chance at a three point play.  The game's score and atmosphere would have changed significantly.
  4. Fourth, and finally.  The final score of the game was 78-75 and Ohio State moves on to the West regional finals.  That's a fact.  And it is not changing.  (And my bracket was totally saved by that outcome, as I have OSU winning it all.)
d5k's picture

Great post.  And to point #4, if you ignore momentum type arguments and obviously circumstances would've been different but the final result was a 3 point win and an argument is being made about a call that was worth 2.76 expected points for Iowa State since he is a 76% free throw shooter (if you give them this call and leave all else equal then 24% of the time we still win and 76% of the time we go to overtime...).  And the call occurred with 1:41 left on the clock, plenty of time to play the foul game even if we didn't score on the subsequent possession(s).

MattaTheMan's picture

Despite being a Mich fan, you are the Man! Agree with everything you said.

Jugdish's picture

I have been rooting for every B1G Ten team. It would be great to get two into the final four. It is hard to believe M MAN that you would take the Bucks to the final (I did also but I am a homer). The B1G has proven that they are the legit conference this year in BBall. What a great game to watch today! My ticker skipped a few beats.

Remember to get your wolverine spayed or neutered. TBDBITL

MN Buckeye's picture

Damn, M, you make too much sense for a MI fan

Qujo's picture

Can't totally disagree with you M Man but I do think you miss a couple key points in regard to your #3...
1) IMO Craft has established position. There was never anyone suggest differently.
2) craft's left foot is easily 12" outside the arc, his right foot mostly outside the arc with his heel on the/inside the arc but never touching.
2a) his overall established position is outside the arc.
3) crafts foot never touched the arc. Therefore he was never in or on the arc.
3a) in a parralel argument, when does a play be called out of bounds when a player dives for a ball into the stands but never touches the floor before throwing the ball back in to the plYing surface? Never.
3b) therefore why is it a foul then when a player is established and his entire body except for a small portion of his back foot is clearly outside the arc AND no part of his body or foot ever is on or inside the arc? 
Only when folks like chuck and team wanted to see the upset. Give Iowa State credit, they are that good but the fact there is any conversation on one play tells me there is ratings on the line...
Good call by the refs. Clear and simple. 


M Man's picture

I saw the video of John Adams at another site.  (It did not play for me in this post.)  John Adams says that it is an unusual rule, determining position in the restricted area.  Notwithstanding the fact that Craft's right heel looked to be hovering over the line, and not touching the line or the restricted area, simply being over that area would be enough to place the player within that area for purposes of the rule.  It's a very weird rule in that regard.
And so, because Clark Kellogg and Jim Nantz did supply an incorrect discussion of what they thought the rule was (it sure sounded good to me at the time, watching the game in real time), and because it may indeed have been a miss by the official, they sent the statement out.
Great game by the Iowa State Cyclones in defeat, and by the Buckeyes in a victory.  The result is unchanged.

d5k's picture

I think this post is a bit on the homer-goggles side.  While it isn't a "clear call", it was a block.  They explained the rule about the restricted area but he was at best arriving at the same time as Clyburn leaves his feet and probably a bit late, which should mean a block since contact can't be avoided (they don't always call it correctly in my view).  The point is that it didn't deserve the attention it got because it didn't "decide the game" as Chuck suggested and there were plenty of questionable calls to choose from.

Ultrabuckeyehomer's picture

i thought it was a bad call, personally.  But, it did not cause OSU to win.  why the outrage over that one call = Barkley.  That was a horribly officiated game, and that was one of the bad calls, with almost two mins. left in the game.  it should not be getting as much attention as it is.    

Bucks43201's picture

Agree. So blown out of proportion by Chuck Dumazz Barkley, Kenny Smith and Greg Gummy Bear.
Anything involving OSU & a chance for controversy = ratings for the media. It's not just ESPiN, but CBS. But, we already knew that.
How about how the officials added time to make it 0.5 seconds, instead of 0.3. That was TURRible!
How about with over 4 minutes left, the ISU player CLEARLY violated the lane on a foul shot by being in the before the free throw was even released by his teammate! That should have automatically taken that point away from ISU. Unreal. Then the ref gives him a warning ... after. What is this - grade school hoops?! geeze

"You win with people." - Woody Hayes

FitzBuck's picture

I do find it interesting Kenny keeps calling it an obvious blown call.  Of all if the questionable calls in that game (including a taunting T on OSU with Iowa STs coach inside the three point line and well outside of the box) I can't believe this one cost them the game.  It was far from obvious. 
Also Sur Charles should stick to what he knows best....hookers!
sorry I'm just tired of the talking heads.  


MN Buckeye's picture

upvote for being tired of the talking heads

Haybucks's picture

Hookers and cookies.



Unky Buck's picture

Greg Anthony was at least the voice of reason there. He kept pointing out how there were so many blown calls in the game that could have "changed" the outcome of the game, but we just focus on that last call. He said it was a blown call, but that it is no worse than anything else and it's part of human error. So at least he was saying, in a roundabout way, that you can't blame the refs for ISU's loss as they missed their chances to win the game.


hodge's picture

It always bums me out to see great games marred by manufactured controversy over a questionable call. Refereeing is amongst an infinitesimal amount of variables that go into deciding a game--a slight change to any of these things could change the outcome of the game. If ISU has one more three pointer fall (and it's with mentioning that they missed plenty), Craft's three merely ties the game instead of winning it (though, to be fair, it probably would've caused an entirely new chain of events, starting from that made three--but I digress). I feel for ISU--they lost a heartbreaker--but to blame it on officiating is lazy; it's merely an excuse to feel sorry for yourself rather than owning up to your own shortcomings. It's the same way it was in the corner of an Arizona endzone in January 2003...

yrro's picture

The fact that they are making this big of a deal out of a *charge* call, which is pretty much the ultimate eye of the beholder call in college basketball, just shows how bullshit and manufactured the controversy is.

captain obvious's picture

You didnt hear Hoiberg mention it because he is a class act and damn good coach, yet slimfast/fatfaster  Chuck wont let it go

I'm a friend of thunder is it any wonder lightning strikes me

captain obvious's picture

With the foul differential 18-8 in the Indiana game yet no mention of biased refereeing.
8 fouls all game
cmon on Chuck must be a BIG thing

I'm a friend of thunder is it any wonder lightning strikes me

Seabass1974's picture

On the bright side of things, at least we will get some coverage of this game. Instead of watching BTN to see highlights.


MattaTheMan's picture

Never leave it in the hands of the officials, I would never blame the refs, Bucks blew the 13 point lead.

MattaTheMan's picture

But this is just proof, they make the calls they see. As Bo says Deal With It.

Poe McKnoe's picture

Maybe Iowa State shouldn't have swatted the ball out on the rebound and would have had the final shot.

Codeezy's picture

I LOL'd at "Game, Blouses". Bravo.

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

100% correct call by the officials.  I didn't need a statement to know that.

Class of 2010.

d1145fresh's picture

When do they send out the statement for the other 50 missed/bad calls throughout that game? 

ShowThemOhiosHere's picture

Yes!  I want to see the statement for the numerous other calls that were BS, not the one call that was actually correct but since that fat fuck Sir Cumference whined, it's all of a sudden called into question.

Class of 2010.

Ultrabuckeyehomer's picture

it was not the right call, but again, no need for a freaking statement

funky123's picture

The way the rule is written is bogus. How can a player be considered to be inside the restricted area if his foot is hovering over that area but if his foot is hovering over the out of bounds line he is still considered to be in bounds?

johnblairgobucks's picture

maybe the restricted area should "light up" when it's occupied, ala the steps for Micheal Jackson in Billie Jean video

Oyster's picture

Is 'he' wearing high heels?

Smanpoint10's picture

or if you are shooting a 3. it's inconsistent

Hovenaut's picture


Grayskullsession's picture


RedStorm45's picture

Where is the statement on the missed Miami out of bounds tip at the end of that game?? Hmmm.

bigbadbuck's picture

Yahoo is reporting that John Adams is now saying that after several reviews that the official called it wrong...........................

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here its a war room

zosima's picture

Wow, horrible reporting. 
On CBS John Adams said that hypothetically, if Craft's foot was above the line, a blocking foul occurred.  He went on to say that he thought it seemed as though the foot was above the line, but he had not seen anything that conclusively demonstrated that.  To misconstrue Adam's statement as saying the call was incorrect.... horrible job Yahoo!

bigbadbuck's picture

See , to me, if your foot is above the line its not on the line..same as if you were the out of bounds if your foot is above the out of bounds line it means you are out of bounds even tho your foot isnt on the line?

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here its a war room