Mountain West Title: SD St. & Fresno St (Video)

[JRutledge]

Play 1:


Play 2:


Play 3: (Nevada's Request) Flagrant 1 Review (Funny stuff from Reggie Miller)


Peace

[Mr.C]

Don't know if I call first at full speed, I thought he got the one in the post right
Did see wrap around but agree with ranter!

[Texref]

Play 1 - looked like a travel on the slo mo from the base line. I miss that call and don't have a problem with the missed call at game speed.

Play 2 - easy travel call. Gathered, stepped right and then left. Pivot up and back down. Good get!

Play 3 - I'll go with what they called, but I don't like the call. Personal opinion on it was a good foul and play on the ball with nothing excessive. Hate to say but I agree with the announcer.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Texref

Play 3 - I'll go with what they called, but I don't like the call. Personal opinion on it was a good foul and play on the ball with nothing excessive. Hate to say but I agree with the announcer.

This mentality needs to be reevaluated and changed. That was not a play on the ball at all. He deliberately chopped the player's arms with force. This is a textbook F1.

[BryanV21]

1 - I got nothing. Looked to me like his right foot was down when he gathered the ball, he then stepped to his left, but his right foot did not return to the floor before the shot.

2. Travel. He got the rebound with both feet on the floor. He then picked up his left foot, making his right foot the pivot. The pivot/right foot then was lifted and put back down before the shot.

3. I'm not a college official, so I can't say what they want from their officials on this play, but I just see a hard foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

3. I'm not a college official, so I can't say what they want from their officials on this play, but I just see a hard foul.

Relate it to a high school game. A FF1 is the same as an intentional foul in the NF Rules for the most part.

Peace

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Relate it to a high school game. A FF1 is the same as an intentional foul in the NF Rules for the most part.

Peace

Okay. My comment was more in reference to the announcers talking about the defender wrapping his arms around the shooter. If this were a high school game I just have a hard foul, nothing more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Okay. My comment was more in reference to the announcers talking about the defender wrapping his arms around the shooter. If this were a high school game I just have a hard foul, nothing more.

Fair enough.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Okay. My comment was more in reference to the announcers talking about the defender wrapping his arms around the shooter. If this were a high school game I just have a hard foul, nothing more.

You should start thinking about these plays differently.
Ask yourself if the defender went for the ball or just played the man.
Is chopping someone's elbow anywhere near the ball?
For NFHS does the foul neutralize the opponent's obvious advantage? Would he have an easy basket, but for the foul?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You should start thinking about these plays differently.
Ask yourself if the defender went for the ball or just played the man.
Is chopping someone's elbow anywhere near the ball?
For NFHS does the foul neutralize the opponent's obvious advantage? Would he have an easy basket, but for the foul?

Yes, I understand all of that. And more often than not I do think of these plays as ones that happen in high school, so I can apply them to what I do.

However, I don't know if that was considered as the defender wrapping his arms around the shooter, and thus a FF1. I didn't want to answer in the high school way and say "no, that's not a FF1", and open myself up to college officials here saying their interpretation... according to how they want it called... was right.

[Camron Rust]

1. Travel
2. Travel
3. OK with FF1 but wouldn't have argued it if they had gone with a common either.

[crosscountry55]

I'm troubled by the FF1 call for two reasons:

1. I don't think this would be called absent a monitor review. This isn't an elbow to the head or something like that. They used the monitor to talk themselves into declaring something intentional/flagrant that wasn't glaringly obvious in real time. This was a desperate play on the ball, but a play on the ball nonetheless. The defender was not trying to neutralize an obvious advantage by the ball handler, because the off hand did not make enough contact (if any) to affect the shooter's motion.

2. On a related note, I made a nearly identical call in a D3 camp game last summer (I was C in transition). Swat with the right hand, slight hand-check with the left/off-hand. And to boot, the shooter went down hard along with the fouler. NFHS rules, so called it intentional. Was a close game with about 4 minutes remaining. Clinician went over the pros and cons after the game, but you could tell that overall he didn't like the call. Camp director got wind, dropped by, got the story, and made it clear he did not approve. I'd been having a good camp up to that point; this was late on Day 2 and it probably took me off of one or two short lists. So....I've got a D3 commissioner who I know does not want a play like this called a FF1, and none of his games have monitors. Seems odd that we make a FF1 call when there IS a monitor when we probably wouldn't if there wasn't one. Again, not talking about a hit to the head here (that's different), just a hopeless reach-in.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I'm troubled by the FF1 call for two reasons:

1. I don't think this would be called absent a monitor review. This isn't an elbow to the head or something like that. They used the monitor to talk themselves into declaring something intentional/flagrant that wasn't glaringly obvious in real time. This was a desperate play on the ball, but a play on the ball nonetheless. The defender was not trying to neutralize an obvious advantage by the ball handler, because the off hand did not make enough contact (if any) to affect the shooter's motion.

2. On a related note, I made a nearly identical call in a D3 camp game last summer (I was C in transition). Swat with the right hand, slight hand-check with the left/off-hand. And to boot, the shooter went down hard along with the fouler. NFHS rules, so called it intentional. Was a close game with about 4 minutes remaining. Clinician went over the pros and cons after the game, but you could tell that overall he didn't like the call. Camp director got wind, dropped by, got the story, and made it clear he did not approve. I'd been having a good camp up to that point; this was late on Day 2 and it probably took me off of one or two short lists. So....I've got a D3 commissioner who I know does not want a play like this called a FF1, and none of his games have monitors. Seems odd that we make a FF1 call when there IS a monitor when we probably wouldn't if there wasn't one. Again, not talking about a hit to the head here (that's different), just a hopeless reach-in.

I'm not commenting specifically about this play but there are always some assignors that refuse to follow the national directives. Should we be surprised? Maybe that is why some are D3 commissioners and not D1 commissioners????

[Texref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This mentality needs to be reevaluated and changed. That was not a play on the ball at all. He deliberately chopped the player's arms with force. This is a textbook F1.

Really? The foul was to the shooters right arm and he was shooting with the right hand. So you call any foul to the arm a flagrant? It was nothimg more than a common foul and I'm not thinking twice about it. Seems you are the only defiant in that it should be an automatic flagrant. Rest of the comments say hard foul... Oh and my "mentality" has served me well so I think I will keep it where it is at thank you.

[Rich]

So many calls are "textbook" that I've lost track.