You make the call

[jearef]

From the NCAA memos:

Play: A-1 rebounds the ball and, while in possession of the ball, is closely guarded by B-1. A-1’s arms and elbows, and the rest of the body, move with a similar speed but A-1’s elbow contacts B-1. The official did not consider the contact to be excessive and assessed a player control foul against A-1. However, after the call, the officials have reason to believe that they may have missed a flagrant foul. They decide to use the monitor to determine the severity of the act. The officials decide that the act was not flagrant but declare the contact to have been intentional. The officials charge A-1 with an intentional personal foul and administer the penalty. Are the officials correct?

Ruling: No. The officials are incorrect. In this play, there are only two possible contact fouls. The player committed either a player control foul (personal) or a flagrant personal foul. When the contact is not considered to be excessive, a player control foul (personal) shall be assessed. When the player’s arm and elbow are swung excessively and contact occurs, a flagrant foul shall be assessed.

When I first read this post, I felt certain I had previously read that an elbow to the face/head of the defender was to be ruled flagrant regardless of the speed with which the elbow was swung, but now I can't find any such memo.

Getting old is a real pain.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The latest instruction coming out from John Adams is that these fouls need to be called flagrant. This hasn't been well publicized yet, but if you keep an eye out this summer you will hear about it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jearef

From the NCAA memos:

Play: A-1 rebounds the ball and, while in possession of the ball, is closely guarded by B-1. A-1’s arms and elbows, and the rest of the body, move with a similar speed but A-1’s elbow contacts B-1. The official did not consider the contact to be excessive and assessed a player control foul against A-1. However, after the call, the officials have reason to believe that they may have missed a flagrant foul. They decide to use the monitor to determine the severity of the act. The officials decide that the act was not flagrant but declare the contact to have been intentional. The officials charge A-1 with an intentional personal foul and administer the penalty. Are the officials correct?

Ruling: No. The officials are incorrect. In this play, there are only two possible contact fouls. The player committed either a player control foul (personal) or a flagrant personal foul. When the contact is not considered to be excessive, a player control foul (personal) shall be assessed. When the player’s arm and elbow are swung excessively and contact occurs, a flagrant foul shall be assessed.

When I first read this post, I felt certain I had previously read that an elbow to the face/head of the defender was to be ruled flagrant regardless of the speed with which the elbow was swung, but now I can't find any such memo.

Getting old is a real pain.

I could be wrong because I had the sound off while watching the game, but didn't such a call just happen in the Va Tech/UConn game?

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I could be wrong because I had the sound off while watching the game, but didn't such a call just happen in the Va Tech/UConn game?

They reviewed it and decided that it was not excessive contact.

The FTs were for a T to Calhoun.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by sseltser

The FTs were for a T to Calhoun.

So what else is new?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The latest instruction coming out from John Adams is that these fouls need to be called flagrant. This hasn't been well publicized yet, but if you keep an eye out this summer you will hear about it.

According to the NCAA ruling posted by jearef (You make the call) it is dependant on excessive swinging. This case was not excessive swinging. It is certainly possible they're going to change the ruling but the published rulings do not support flagrant.

[rockyroad]

Wow. 7 people have actually said they would no-call this play. That's kind of hard to believe. Dude knew the defender was there, had no reason to throw that elbow out there other than to get a piece of the defender - that's a solid PC foul and the guy deserved to have to sit for a while.

Btw - the announcer is the same Rautins who played at Syracuse in the 80's and now has a nephew (or cousin) playing for Syracuse?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

...

Btw - the announcer is the same Rautins who played at Syracuse in the 80's and now has a nephew (or cousin) playing for Syracuse?

Yep and yep (father/son). Rautins played with Pearl Washington I believe.

And Brandon Triche is the nephew of Howard Triche, who played on the '87 Final Four squad.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And?

Isn't that how you're supposed to play defense?

I definitely think it's the way you're supposed to play defense. And, it kind of makes me chuckle fans and coaches freak out when there is some type of contact in that type of situation. Playing good, "tight" defense doesn't mean a player has eliminated the risk of the offensive player contacting them in some way. Play tight D...be prepared for contact. The defender in the play referenced acted as though he never considered the fact the offensive player would pivot. Come on.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by DLH17

I definitely think it's the way you're supposed to play defense. And, it kind of makes me chuckle fans and coaches freak out when there is some type of contact in that type of situation. Playing good, "tight" defense doesn't mean a player has eliminated the risk of the offensive player contacting them in some way. Play tight D...be prepared for contact. The defender in the play referenced acted as though he never considered the fact the offensive player would pivot. Come on.

So are you one of the people who said this shouldn't be anything?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by DLH17

I definitely think it's the way you're supposed to play defense. And, it kind of makes me chuckle fans and coaches freak out when there is some type of contact in that type of situation. Playing good, "tight" defense doesn't mean a player has eliminated the risk of the offensive player contacting them in some way. Play tight D...be prepared for contact. The defender in the play referenced acted as though he never considered the fact the offensive player would pivot. Come on.

And?

None of that has got anything to do with whether a foul should be called or not. The only thing that's really relevant is whether the defender was playing defense legally or not.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by tomegun

So are you one of the people who said this shouldn't be anything?

I watched the play a half dozen times. At first, I just didn't see anything flagrant...still don't. Not even sure I see a foul. Just a quick pivot, elbows high but not extended which makes me think he was almost trying to avoid contact with the defensive player. So, based on that, I voted "nothing". However, I love the aggressive defense. Not a thing wrong with what I saw from the defender with the exception he was a bit of a drama queen.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And?

None of that has got anything to do with whether a foul should be called or not. The only thing that's really relevant is whether the defender was playing defense legally or not.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

You asked the question "isn't that how you're supposed to play defense"....I answered. I'll reiterate. YES.

Perhaps my point was made in my response to tomegun.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by DLH17

I watched the play a half dozen times. At first, I just didn't see anything flagrant...still don't. Not even sure I see a foul. Just a quick pivot, elbows high but not extended which makes me think he was almost trying to avoid contact with the defensive player. So, based on that, I voted "nothing". However, I love the aggressive defense. Not a thing wrong with what I saw from the defender with the exception he was a bit of a drama queen.

You don't see a foul? Or you don't think the contact constitutes a foul?

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You don't see a foul? Or you don't think the contact constitutes a foul?

Still working it out....here's what I see:

almost simoultaneously, the offensive player pivots forward towards defender who is also moving forward into and has two hands on the offensive player's torso.

it's easy to see why the pc foul was called because the upper, outside part of the offensive player's arm makes contact with defensive player....it's not so easy to see the defensive player made first contact.

hats off to the defender for drawing the foul