1. You need to protect players better. This isn't football. Taking a full swing and whacking an opponent is excessive.
2. The ball was being held next to his left shoulder when the defender whacked the right arm down at the elbow in nothing other than an effort to make certain that the offensive player couldn't shoot and score. The defender was nowhere near the ball.
3. The three D1 guys using a monitor concluded that it was an FF1.
4. The "hard foul" mentality is what the current instructors and rules writers are striving to change and rid from the game.

^^^^^^^

That D3 supervisor is one of the most respected film breakdown guys in the business, and is utilized by D1 conferences to do such work. But nice cheap shot about somebody you don't know and a play you haven't seen.

Without seeing the play we don't know if that camp play would be a flagrant-1 or not.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

1) why is this a travel?

2) no comments needed

3) I have a normal foul. I call my share of intentionals and FF1's, but this would not be one of them.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

You do realize that there are D3 supervisors that are actually D1 supervisors?

John Adams for example used to be a D3, NAIA and D1 supervisor before he got to be the NCAA Coordinator.

Peace

I would also like to know the answer to this

It wasn't totally clear, but from what crosscountry wrote it seems that the D3 supervisor didn't see the play either yet decided to criticize the official.

I think most have him gathering with the left foot on the floor about in the middle of the FT circle. Then a step with the right and a step with the left.

After watching a few more times, I still don't see control until after the left foot is off the ground. I don't see it as that conclusive, but it is interesting to watch these plays over and over. There's such a fine line sometimes. I think this is not a travel.

Are you at least giving him 4 FTs?:D

I quite clearly said I was NOT commenting about THIS situation.

1 - Travel (but subject to live speed interp of when he "gathered")
2 - Travel
3 - I'm also not a huge fan of this one, but based on current applications of the rule they got it right.

Re #3: I think the biggest issue people have with this is that there is still division, not sure if its regional or age or just individual difference in regards to the flagrant/intentional mentality. I grew up watching ball in the 80's and 90's too, with my coaches telling me that if you are going to foul make sure they don't get the shot off. Currently reality is that "hard fouls" or fouls just to break up plays are being asked to be called as unsportsmanlikes/flagrants/intentionals depending on your rule set. Lots of officials I work with and talk to seem to feel that these (Somewhat like techs for some) only come in extreme situations and that somehow calling them is a relflection of the game getting out of control as opposed to part of game management. We are routinely be asked to make these calls more and more "automatic" in situations that we see to simply eliminate certain types of plays from the game. Our history in the games or personal feelings about the game might not match what we are trying to eliminate but thats the game.

I think it's important to, at first, stick with a normal foul. Then take a moment to review the play in your head, and possibly see what your partners think, before upgrading the call to an intentional/flagrant.

Especially for officials, like me, that can let their emotions get the better of them.

If you do that, then it'll be very hard to be second guessed.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

The opposite argument is that flagrant/intentional fouls should be obvious and officials should call them such right away. Doing what you just advocated leaves the crew open to criticism from a coach of "why didn't you make that call in the first place?" Or it will be said that at first the officials called this then changed their minds and called that. You are going to walk into exactly what you desire to avoid.
My advice:
If an action fits the POE or definition/instruction have the courage to make the proper call. (Especially in contests without a monitor)

I understand this side of the discussion, and when it comes to an intentional foul you're probably right. But I disagree when it comes to a flagrant foul, especially since an ejection comes with it.

This season my partner called a flagrant foul and ejected a player. We talked about the call after the game and it turned out his call was excessive and a regular tech would have sufficed. But too late. That player was gone for part of the second quarter and the remainder of the game. And that's the problem.

By the way, courage has nothing to do with it. It's about being fair. So good for you if your initial reaction is correct 100% of the time, but some of us do make errors. An error on a violation stinks, but at least the kid can still play.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk