Quote:
Originally Posted by APG
From the NCAA-M Rule book:
d. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:
1. The severity of the contact;
2. Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact);
3. The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position).
4. Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental. Note: The above acts represent examples of potential flagrant 2 fouls. Other acts may also qualify, if they meet the criteria of being not only excessive but also severe or extreme.
It should also be noted that the WIF guideline is from the NBA. In fact a lot of the criteria I used earlier is from NBA guidelines on what they consider a FF1/FF2. Now someone people may not agree, but I think it's a good baseline as to what to consider intentional/flagrant in games where NFHS has not done a good job except as to give vague, general statements...especially in regard to flagrant fouls.
|
Thanks for posting this. I agree that the NCAA has done a much better job of defining a disqualifying foul (FF2) than the NFHS. The NFHS wording seems antiquated to me and fails to give officials the necessary rules support to protect the safety of the players, in my opinion.
As I mentioned in a previous post the mentality of those who have been instructed at the college level in the past few years is quite different from the NFHS-only official or the college ref from years ago towards these hard fouls against airborne players. I'm glad to see that the NCAA has codified the instruction language from a few years ago into its rulesbook. Not having such in the NFHS book leaves officials to deal with the terms excessive, violent, and savage. As demonstrated here, parsing those leads to unclear outcomes.
I note the decision of some in this discussion who are going with an IPF and not a FPF under NFHS rules and think that it has a tremendous amount to do with seeing this play as excessive contact, but not believing it to be violent or savage due to the common definition of those words. I wonder if someone such as MTD would have a different decision if he ruled on this play for an NCAAM's contest using the rules which you have just posted. He is a great example for the category that I mentioned before of someone who is a longtime NFHS official and/or a college official from previous years. I greatly respect his opinions and know that he cares about doing quality and proper officiating, so it is worthwhile to contrast his thoughts with those of johnnyd and APG, who are in the new/current college official crowd and getting the latest instruction on how the NCAA wants this aspect of the game called.
I truly believe that the difference in the rulesbook language and the training from one level to the other, as well as from one time period to the next, causes these differing decisions from quality officials who view the same play. That shouldn't be the case and in this instance it is something which I think can be fixed by updating the NFHS book.
For player safety the action shown in the video needs to be a disqualifying foul (flagrant) in the high school game.