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

Play 1:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HsczMz-ZBb4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play 2:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PxF4V8K_D9o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Play 3: (Nevada's Request) Flagrant 1 Review (Funny stuff from Reggie Miller)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T1JGIFiqF9k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fair enough.

Peace

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.

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

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????

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.

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

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

When in doubt, throw 'em out! :D

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.

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

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? ;)

I'm not saying they are wrong, they get paid for their judgment. I have my opinion of what I would rule. But I'll remind you of this response the next time you blast a college official for their judgment. [emoji6]

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Guess according to Nevada the foul in Duke UNCW game (about 16 left in second half) should have been a flagrant. Defender grabbed the shooter's arm at the elbow and made no play on the ball. Guess what they went to the monitor and reviewed and kept it a common foul... Guess what else, it was the same official as the one in this thread. Hum... The FF1 in this play was NOT for the hit to the arm, it was because the defender's off arm "wrapped" around the shooter. I still don't have a problem with the the call, I've just stated that it would only be a hard foul in my game at live speed with no replay.

Uh oh, the the drama continues.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

"...according to Nevada the foul in Duke UNCW game (about 16 left in second half) should have been a flagrant. Defender grabbed the shooter's arm at the elbow and made no play on the ball."

When I see the play, I'll certainly give my opinion. If it is a fact that the defender "made no play on the ball," then by definition it should have been an FF1.

Not according to the officials who looked at the monitor

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Or, maybe it is possible to call that a play on the ball that just missed and ended up on the arm. If they swiped at the ball but missed and hit the arm, I'm OK with going with a common foul, even if they hang onto it just a bit as long as it doesn't become excessive.

Game. Set. Match.

Anybody considering a multiple foul on play 3? You have a shooter fouled in the act of shooting and then being fouled again by a different player before they return to the ground. I have never called it but thought if any play deserves it it would be a play like this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you can explain to a coach in less then 20 seconds how you're going to administer this, go ahead. :D

I called a MF once when I was a smart-@$$ rookie who thought I knew the rulebook better than anyone else. Let's just say feedback from an evaluator after the game was....enlightening.

But, for the sake of rules trivia, say you did call a MF here. How would you administer the penalty?

Without looking, I believe it is 1 free throw for each foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Reminds me of my early years - I think second or third - when I thought about calling a double foul in one of those case book "A1 is fouled by B1 in the act of shooting then displaces B2 who had legal guarding position" plays. I had just seen the play in the case book an hour before the game. I thought about the situation for a hot second and then said to myself, "Nah. I don't think this will end very well." :D

Yup. And yet the NFHS will have 4 questions about multiple fouls and false-double-anythings on the exams every freaking time.

The odds of me calling a multiple foul are similar to the odds of me walking on the moon.

I believe the penalty is I have to buy two round of beer for both of my partners.

I was working a first round boys playoff game a few weeks ago.

I called a blocking foul in the backcourt and the coach decided to tell me what he thought of the call. Of course, the throw-in was right at his bench (no way to do it elsewhere without making stuff up) and as he's talking and I'm trying to get the ball back in so I don't have to engage his foolishness as the game was already an ugly blowout. Then the opposing player said something to the coach about him being wrong. The coach said something back.

I told them both to knock it off. The coach had this look of "how dare a player talk to me" and I'm thinking "I agree with the player." Anyhow, at halftime, I said to my partners, "So, if I call a double technical there, how will it be enforced?"

Partner said, "By yourself. We both would've left." They would've had to steal my car. I drove.

I've called double technicals before. Everyone should know how to administer that. Very different from the play referenced above that is never called (and shouldn't be called).

Have you ever had one between a player and a head coach? :D

I agree that the administration is easy.

No, I'll give you that. I've never had one between a player and a head coach. :D

I almost had one. Visiting player earned one and took a quick second to settle down after I called it. We were right in front of the home bench, and the home coach got excited "Give him another one!" One quick glance and he settled down, too.

A long time ago, I was on a game where we didn't immediately recognize that the visiting coach had thrown his clipboard and broke his marker. Little plastic bits exploded and littered the floor. This happened while we were on the other half of the court, so we weren't paying much attention to his bench area at the time and it was a packed house so we couldn't hear it either.

Before we could respond, the athletic director from the home team came rushing onto the court saying "You have to T him up! You have to T him up!"

One of my more unforgettable games...

My partner had one between two head coaches in Juco game this year.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yeah, that happened to me once, too. JV game in California a few years back. One coach showed up about a minute before tip, the other coach made a snide remark about it in the middle of the first quarter ("well, at least I bothered to show up on time!"), and then it was on. Back and forth subtle (but audible) digs for the next three minutes. Finally I had enough and double-T'd them.

Sat them both down and didn't have another issue the rest of the game.

Same here now that I learned my lesson. ;)

I hate the unrealistic test questions, too. But, separate from that I've come to realize that understanding the administration of DFs and MFs is important in the unlikely event of blarges or perhaps two officials going to the table and reporting fouls on different players from the same team....without realizing they're both reporting something until it's too late.

To put it another way, would you ever call a MF by yourself? No. But if you unwittingly do it as a crew, there's a process for that so that you can at least avoid compounding crappy mechanics with improvised penalty administration.

My game was similar in that there was pregame animosity between the coaches. My partner who called it is from your board.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk