Flagrant Foul at End of OSU vs Charlotte Game?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

100% a flagrant foul. The NCAA rules committee along with Art Hyland and JD Collins want to eliminate the "hook and hold" play from the NCAA game. This includes both on the perimeter where a cutter or offensive player tries to hold an opponents arm trying to fool the referee and get a defensive foul call, and in the post area where players will grab another players arm which is a dangerous play.

This was an excellent review and call.

There was a hook and hold play in the UK-Duke game which they did look at but, incorrectly, did not upgrade on video review. JD sent out a hellfire and brimstone video referencing the UK play an others saying "we want this eliminated from the game" and "if you call it, they will stop doing it".

This play has nothing to do with hook and hold. The hook and hold play is where you're trying to fool the official into thinking you are fouled while pulling the opponent with you or when hook and pull an opponent to the ground.

They called this a flagrant-1 because he wrapped him up with two hands. I'll leave it up to JD Collins and the Conference USA supervisor to determine if that was the best judgement for this play.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[griblets]

I've always liked the NFHS term Intentional over NCAA Flagrant 1. In this case, "intentional" is much easier for people (players, coaches, fans) to understand than "flagrant."

• Flagrant - (of something considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive
  
• Intentional - done on purpose; deliberate

Base on the English language, this foul looks a lot more intentional than flagrant, and would make more sense to the masses if described as such.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by griblets

I've always liked the NFHS term Intentional over NCAA Flagrant 1. In this case, "intentional" is much easier for people (players, coaches, fans) to understand than "flagrant."

• Flagrant - (of something considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive
  
• Intentional - done on purpose; deliberate

Base on the English language, this foul looks a lot more intentional than flagrant, and would make more sense to the masses if described as such.

I disagree with this totally. People think "Intentional Foul" means just that, it was intentional. Or that if "He was playing the ball, he did not do it on purpose" they think that means we cannot call an Intentional Foul. We do not call an intentional foul based on any intent. So that just gets into an argument that often would be unnecessary.

At least Flagrant means something more egregious and out of bounds. It does not bring the same conversation that "intentional" brings. Not even close. I wish the NF would just change the language and at the very least we would have to remind the coach or player what that means. Too many debates over plays like this because they are caught up in intent rather than the actual act.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with this totally. People think "Intentional Foul" means just that, it was intentional.

While I like the NFHS term "Intentional", I fully agree with JRutledge.

An NFHS Intentional Foul is what it is, as defined in NFHS Rule 4.

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may
not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional
fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved
with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically
designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

Not the same as an intentional foul as defined in your Funk & Wagnalls.

[ilyazhito]

This is a textbook Flagrant 1 foul. There was not even a remote attempt to play the ball, with the wrap-up just being icing on the cake. Correct call by the officials.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is a textbook Flagrant 1 foul. There was not even a remote attempt to play the ball, with the wrap-up just being icing on the cake. Correct call by the officials.

Not arguing/disagreeing but I thought it was a textbook common foul. The right hand is indeed around the back but the left hand appears to be playing the ball. Is the score/time relevant to this call? Would the officials have called a flagrant if this play was done right after the tip? In other words, can officials use time/score/situation to judge a play? Or should all plays be judged the same regardless of time/score/situation? Stuff to consider as officials need to have same understanding before start of game....at least IMO.

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is a textbook Flagrant 1 foul. There was not even a remote attempt to play the ball, with the wrap-up just being icing on the cake. Correct call by the officials.

I can see an argument for this being a correct call by the letter of the law. However, the game is not played in black and white. There are grey areas. I would NOT even consider calling this play an F-1 based on game management (time, score, etc.). It is a coaching/playing tactic with a long history.

I am still surprised it stood as called. Makes me wonder if they had previous issues, but even so, I still don't see this being an F-1. Not even close.

[deecee]

This is not a "hook and hold" play. This is also a common foul. Flagrant 1 is a reach, even by the letter of the law. I would expect this to be changed next year to add more confusion.