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????