Duke v Mich State

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

#1) This plays illustrates why the Trail should never leave opponents unmonitored in the backcourt.

#2) This is why you don't pass on players intentionally pulling the jersey of an opponent.

#1) Great point.

#2) I went back and looked at the video again, and you're right, this is more egregious than I first thought. The replay angles don't show it well, but the live angle at the very beginning of the clip was telling. B34's shirt was pulled at a 30° angle. Yeah, that's probably not a hold one should pass on. Still a common foul, though.

Intent doesn't matter a whit to me. I look at mode of contact (elbow) and location of contact (head and neck area), and whether the contact is excessive/unnecessary or excessive and also severe/extreme.

For me, this contact is excessive and severe. Therefore, Flagrant 2. I have a Flagrant 1 for the jersey pull.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Intent doesn't matter a whit to me. I look at mode of contact (elbow) and location of contact (head and neck area), and whether the contact is excessive/unnecessary or excessive and also severe/extreme.
For me, this contact is excessive and severe. Therefore, Flagrant 2. I have a Flagrant 1 for the jersey pull.

It was none of those bolded items. And being so rigid, without taking into account context clues, would not bode well for moving up the college ranks.

[bucky]

I know Lamont and one thought that comes to my mind is that he has officiated and officiates so many levels. His words may have been inexact due to wording used in other areas, like the WNBA for example. Not saying he is correct/incorrect, just adding that crosstalk among many levels (WNBA, NBA, NCAA, FIBA, NFHS, etc.) can get mixed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bucky

I know Lamont and one thought that comes to my mind is that he has officiated and officiates so many levels. His words may have been inexact due to wording used in other areas, like the WNBA for example. Not saying he is correct/incorrect, just adding that crosstalk among many levels (WNBA, NBA, NCAA, FIBA, NFHS, etc.) can get mixed.

I am sure that is what happened, but also they gave the ball to the offended team at the division line. The only way I can think that can happen is if you call a Dead Ball Technical (which this was not) or an FF2, which they clearly did not eject the offending player. So not sure what happened? I might have to go back and look at the video to make sure where the ball was, but it was not near the division line to my understanding.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

I know Lamont and one thought that comes to my mind is that he has officiated and officiates so many levels. His words may have been inexact due to wording used in other areas, like the WNBA for example. Not saying he is correct/incorrect, just adding that crosstalk among many levels (WNBA, NBA, NCAA, FIBA, NFHS, etc.) can get mixed.

Then Teddy V or Driscoll should have corrected Lamont. But you can see Teddy say at one point "half court", so the whole crew eats that, not just Lamont.

Originally Posted by Raymond

It was none of those bolded items. And being so rigid, without taking into account context clues, would not bode well for moving up the college ranks.

So you’re saying this is not a Flagrant 1 foul? The first of those bolded items you called out refers to a Flagrant 1.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Intent doesn't matter a whit to me. I look at mode of contact (elbow) and location of contact (head and neck area), and whether the contact is excessive/unnecessary or excessive and also severe/extreme.

For me, this contact is excessive and severe. Therefore, Flagrant 2. I have a Flagrant 1 for the jersey pull.

Originally Posted by AremRed

So you’re saying this is not a Flagrant 1 foul? The first of those bolded items you called out refers to a Flagrant 1.

You said FF2.

[bucky]

Teddy was right there, not sure why he passed on the jersey hold. had he immediately called an FF1 for that, there may have been no escalation. Duke player, being held, simply tried to swipe away holding hand without looking back, and inadvertently (IMO) hit the MSU player... above the shoulders. Ball was at mid-court. Teddy allowed play to continue. Now, at dead ball, they review.

Many have offered their opinion. I would have just went with double F1's.

(I noticed, at 1:58, that JD (looks like him) is at the table.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bucky

Teddy was right there, not sure why he passed on the jersey hold. had he immediately called an FF1 for that, there may have been no escalation. Duke player, being held, simply tried to swipe away holding hand without looking back, and inadvertently (IMO) hit the MSU player... above the shoulders. Ball was at mid-court. Teddy allowed play to continue. Now, at dead ball, they review.

Many have offered their opinion. I would have just went with double F1's.

(I noticed, at 1:58, that JD (looks like him) is at the table.)

I would like to think I would have had double F1's on this. I do know I would not have left the players, especially 2 bigs.

That was Collins at the table.

Originally Posted by Raymond

You said FF2.

You said it was “none of those bolded items”. And the first part of the section you bolded was the Flagrant 1 language, the second part was the Flagrant 2 language. Thus, “none of those bolded items” means neither Flagrant 1 nor Flagrant 2. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It looked to me like he was trying to slap away the arm of the MSU player that was holding onto him, not slinging an elbow. The elbow making contact was "incidental" to that (and I don't mean to say this was incidental contact).

I could go with an F1, but I do not believe there was an intent to harm here.

This is what I had on the play. You can only see it on the very first original view. all the rest don't show the jersey grab. Glad I wasn't the only one who thought that was a strange enforcement. I would have had double F1 on both players in this sitch.

[hamnegger]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Meh. It’s not like he wound up and slammed him. Did you see that little, “oops, crap I hit his head” look on his face? F1.

Wrong guy shot FTs, ball was inbounded 47 feet from where it should have been, and now the offender is only one vice two Ts from ejection. It’s really bad to kick a rule at this level; it’s even worse to make up a new type of foul on the fly. That was a big oops. Shouldn’t have happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The NCAA Women's rules i know allow for ANY player to shoot the 2 free throws so the "the wrong guy" could not be shooting if it same in mens. Also it is a division line throw in in NCAAW. Again not sure of mens.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

The NCAA Women's rules i know allow for ANY player to shoot the 2 free throws so the "the wrong guy" could not be shooting if it same in mens. Also it is a division line throw in in NCAAW. Again not sure of mens.

The men did not adopt those changes.

[CallMeMrRef]

The videos won't run on my computer - internet explorer 11. Are there some setting issues? Google chrome?