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

[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????

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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????

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

No, he didn't see the play, but I was standing right next to his clinician when he was given a fair and accurate description of the play. And virtually without hesitation, he said, "that's not an intentional foul." I was humbled. And I'm not upset with the supervisor; I have too much respect for him to disagree with him.

This all plays into why I'm surprised (and troubled) that the call made in the OP clip was a FF1.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

No, he didn't see the play, but I was standing right next to his clinician when he was given a fair and accurate description of the play. And virtually without hesitation, he said, "that's not an intentional foul." I was humbled. And I'm not upset with the supervisor; I have too much respect for him to disagree with him.

This all plays into why I'm surprised (and troubled) that the call made in the OP clip was a FF1.

The play in the OP will likely end up on an NCAA training video for FF1 calls. It is absolutely what the NCAA brass wants deemed an FF1. What is surprising and troubling is that you and this supervisor don't understand that.

[APG]

Put me in the camp of not upgrading play 3 to a F1.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The play in the OP will likely end up on an NCAA training video for FF1 calls. It is absolutely what the NCAA brass wants deemed an FF1. What is surprising and troubling is that you and this supervisor don't understand that.

You speak as if your interpretation of this play is the definitive source. There have been quite a few officials in this thread who do not believe play 3 is an FF1.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You speak as if your interpretation of this play is the definitive source. There have been quite a few officials in this thread who do not believe play 3 is an FF1.

How many of them were on the court using the monitor in that game?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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????

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