View Single Post
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 22, 2010, 07:21pm
Nevadaref Nevadaref is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by jearef View Post
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?
Reply With Quote