Hook and hold (Flagrant 1) Video

[JRutledge]

Peace

[#olderthanilook]

Good call.

[bucky]

IMO, incorrect call of F1. Player did not appear to be deceiving ref. They went to monitor though and Hall was OK with it. Tough to argue with that.


Proof of bad call though is that FT shooter missed both shots. Ball don't lie.

[Raymond]

Even though it was a hook, it doesn't meet the standard of an F1, IMO. He didn't hook him while faking getting foul nor did he pull his opponent to the floor.

NCAA-Men's Rule 4-15-2c 7. Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm in an attempt to deceive the official into believing the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul.

[crosscountry55]

Not an NCAA official, but it looked pretty deceitful to me, especially when R20 hung on as W1 tried to break the hold. My gut tells me F1 but I'll defer to Raymond's more rules-based analysis. I just hate this play; if nothing else I'm glad college basketball is trying to excise it from the game.

On a picky note, after all that time reviewing at the monitor, they put the ball back in play on the wrong side of the lane. Oops.

[johnny d]

For those of you who still think it is necessary to look for deceit on this play, here is a quote from Art Hyland on November 9, 2018: "There is no requirement that an official make a judgment that a player intended to deceive the official prior to calling a hook and hold foul. The rules do not require the officials to determine the intent of a player. When an official calls a hook and hold foul, the rule assumes that there was intent to deceive. The act of committing a hook and hold foul is a deceitful act."

This is clearly an F1 foul in the opinion of JD.

[bucky]

I can easily see where one player can clamp an opponent's arm and have the F1 called. in the OP, two opponents are hooked and holding so how is it determined on whom the foul is charged? Further, if the deceit is built into the foul, why bother going to the monitor? I can understand if some fouls are missed and clarification is needed for a possible F1 upgrade but in OP, calling official called it right away didn't he? I have seen this call a few times and every time they went to the monitor. Not sure why as, according to quote from Hyland, deceit is included to the rule by default. Seems that every hook/hold foul would be, by default, an F1. No players could simply get tangled accidentally any more. All hook/holds are F1. Correct?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by johnny d

For those of you who still think it is necessary to look for deceit on this play, here is a quote from Art Hyland on November 9, 2018: "There is no requirement that an official make a judgment that a player intended to deceive the official prior to calling a hook and hold foul. The rules do not require the officials to determine the intent of a player. When an official calls a hook and hold foul, the rule assumes that there was intent to deceive. The act of committing a hook and hold foul is a deceitful act."



This is clearly an F1 foul in the opinion of JD.

They should have written the rule the way Hyland and Collins want it enforced. They should have left out unnecessary verbiage about deceitfulness, and they shouldn't have put out videos where they emphasized pulling a player down to the ground.

I'll be glad when Hyland gets replaced by somebody who has a little more attention to detail. There are several people on this forum who I would rather see doing that job at both the NCAA and NFHS levels.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk