Flagrant 1,Flagrant 2,Common? NCAAW

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Looking at all the replays - which is basically what the crew saw - I can understand why they went CDBT, which is essentially an F1 technical. Missouri #22 didn't wind up to hit Arkansas #33 and there wasn't a heck of a lot of follow through. In other words, it may not be as severe/extreme as it appeared on first glance.

This is just attempting to rationalize the decision rendered. It is still wrong.

Originally Posted by Adam

She hit her in the face, intentionally. With or without windup or follow through, I'm hard pressed to see this as anything other than a fight.

This is absolutely correct. This was a deliberate cheap shot.
The best ruling would have been a held ball followed by a technical foul which carries an ejection. Whatever that is called in NCAAW terminology.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is just attempting to rationalize the decision rendered. It is still wrong.

Did I say I agreed with it? If you remember, my first comment off my initial look in real time was F2. All I said was I can see how they came up with the CDBT based on what they saw on the replay.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

I'm not so sure I see this as intentional. The way they came down with the held ball, it appears that Black 22's hand was on the ball under White 33's hand, and as her hand came loose, she got her in the face with a backhand/wrist.

Live action, on the first angle without zoom, it looks like a forearm, and I'd definitely toss Black 22 for that, but when you see the replays, especially slowed down, it doesn't look the same.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The best ruling would have been a held ball followed by a technical foul which carries an ejection. Whatever that is called in NCAAW terminology.

This is what they ruled. A held ball followed by a CDBTF, instead of the flagrant 2 T which most of us agree was warranted.

[Bad Zebra]

The contact looked a little too well placed to be anything other than F2 in my opinion...but I'm not on the court, with the benefit of knowing the exact NCAAW criteria and able to see it from all angles available at court side. In the big scheme of things, this one doesn't seem to rise to the level of egregious error on the part of the crew by any means.

[TimTaylor]

F2 in my opinion..

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I'm not so sure I see this as intentional. The way they came down with the held ball, it appears that Black 22's hand was on the ball under White 33's hand, and as her hand came loose, she got her in the face with a backhand/wrist.

Live action, on the first angle without zoom, it looks like a forearm, and I'd definitely toss Black 22 for that, but when you see the replays, especially slowed down, it doesn't look the same.

That's essentially what I was trying to say earlier. Thank you for finding a better way to say it. Again, things look different under the bright lights and in slow motion.

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

The contact looked a little too well placed to be anything other than F2 in my opinion...but I'm not on the court, with the benefit of knowing the exact NCAAW criteria and able to see it from all angles available at court side. In the big scheme of things, this one doesn't seem to rise to the level of egregious error on the part of the crew by any means.

The NCAAW criteria isn't any different than NCAAM. The rule for F2s includes the words "severe" and "extreme" (the act doesn't have to be both). As I said earlier, I can see how Missouri #22 was allowed to stay in the game based on the rule and what they saw/didn't see on the replay and - possibly - the emotional temperature of the game.