Duke v Mich State

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

A jersey grab isn't automatically an intentional foul in NFHS. Usually it's a common foul for holding. It, along with any other type of contact foul, is intentional in NFHS if it meets the parameters of such.

As to the subject of whether you could call a double personal foul here....sure, you could. But, I'd probably be passing on the marginal jersey hold and then get surprised by the elbow. I'd be reluctant, at that point, to re-evaluate the hold as something more than marginal just because of how the other guy reacted. I want to get the big foul here.

If the two fouls were a little more bang-bang, then maybe DPF makes sense. Otherwise I'm probably not calling it that way. I like to save my DPFs for those few times in a season where they really stand out as a good use of a tool. This wouldn't be one of those times, IMHO.

#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.

[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.)

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.