Flagrant Foul at End of OSU vs Charlotte Game?

[Dale3]

Thoughts? Flagrant or common foul?

Seems to be common foul on the floor, then upgraded to flagrant at the monitor?

The referees called a FLAGRANT foul on this, a normal foul that happens at the end of every game, as you'll see in the clip. So Charlotte gets two shots and the ball. Jon Davis makes both FTs, Charlotte then gets the ball back, which is absurd, and Davis then makes a 3 to win. pic.twitter.com/pTdUUqPpGf

— Sam Vecenie (@Sam_Vecenie) November 14, 2018

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".

[Nevadaref]

AremRed,
It would be wonderful if you could post JD's video.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

AremRed,
It would be wonderful if you could post JD's video.

Unlike last season they have not put an of the NCAA-M training videos on YouTube. Gotta be a member of the NCAA-M Arbiter group to see it.

[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

[Dale3]

I dont see how this is a "hook and hold" play. This is a totally different type of play than the "hook and hold" of cutters and rebounders that JD Collins / NCAA has been driving home.

To me, this is just a guy grabbing the ball handler, a common foul.

[Nevadaref]

Too bad because I would very much like to see the instruction that the officials are supposedly following in this play since I don't see anything other than a common foul by the defender.
He puts both hands on the opponent, one in the front and one in the back, in order to commit a foul. He doesn't grasp the opponent's arm, do anything which could cause injury, or feign that he was fouled. He also immediately ceases contact upon the whistle. I don't understand what else could be desired of this defender. He gave a strategic foul in a sporting manner.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Unlike last season they have not put an of the NCAA-M training videos on YouTube. Gotta be a member of the NCAA-M Arbiter group to see it.

They did put the first instructional video of the season on YouTube.


The second in-season video was posted. They call them "Weekly Whistles #1" and so on.

The Duke/UK play on the rebound is shown as an example of a Hook and Hold play.

Peace

[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.