Flagrant 1,Flagrant 2,Common? NCAAW
 

Great use of the monitor in the Missouri @ Arkansas Women's game at 3:11 to go in the 3rd quarter.Any thoughts on the call? Can any of our video gurus post the play from WatchESPN?

If no one else can get it, I'll post once I get home in the AM. Watching it now (12:27A EST) at full-speed for the first time my initial thought is F2. I had the sound down so I didn't realize the ball was dead so I'll amend that to F2T.

F2 for me.

Here's the play...


<iframe width="960" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KFLhf-4WW7w?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They ruled a held ball and then a contact dead ball T.

Without the benefit of replay, I doubt I would have ruled the ball dead and probably gone with a flagrant personal (NFHS) or flagrant 2 personal (NCAA).

F2

Seeya~

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.

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.

Get the push on black on the initial rebounding action

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

And am I the only one who sees a rebound foul on B5 before all of this, or is that not something that gets called at this level?

I guess not. Thanks BNR.

That should be a foul at every level....and thats an ejection for me also.

First thing I noticed as well. And I can't see how that's not a Flagrant 2. Deliberately struck her in the face with the forearm. Should be an ejection IMO.

I was astonished that a F2 wasn't called watching it live.It looks like the arm clearly comes off and gets her in the chin with intent.And good catch to all of you who saw the shove on the rebounding action prior.

Looks like an F2 to me.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

F2 in my opinion..

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.



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.