Vid Request: Mich State vs Perdue - hook/hold = F1
 

With about 5:45 left in the game, a rebounding foul is called. They go to the monitor and upgrade it to an F1 for hook/hold. I have seen many of these now and this appeared to be the least egregious of any hook/hold foul that indeed ended up being upgraded to an F1. Izzo bonkers, lol. Wymer on the game. Shortly thereafter, there is a rebounding foul called on a FT and it appeared very similar to the aforementioned F1 but they did not even go to the monitor. Announcers could not stop complaining about the new rule.

It's a new rule and concept. Expect growing pains and tweaking in the off season. Folks need to just get over it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oEiHlKkEF24" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Will Perdue is still playing college basketball? :eek:

Especially when you publish a new rule with certain criteria then send out a bulletin that says that criteria doesn't really apply.

The coaches write the rules.

Couldn't get through the video without a "make up call" assertion on the obvious rebounding foul by Purdue.

As someone who has no stake in the college game, I'll say this:

Ridiculous interpretation that simply needs to be acknowledged as a mistake and quietly go away.

+1 - it would be nice if the announcers understood or comprehended who sets the damn rules and expectations in the first place. Their heads would explode if they found out it was the coaches and teams.

It is their rule. We just enforce it. And they gave the D1 level, for the most part, the ability to review this. It does not matter how silly we feel it is.

Still waiting for the screen/blowup double foul to take place. I have not seen one yet.

Peace

Chickenology ...
 

No, it's the college founded by Frank Perdue, specializing in the study of Chickenology.

https://specials-images.forbesimg.co...kground=000000

Their biggest rival is Kentucky, not the Wildcats, rather the college founded by Colonel Sanders.

Soooo....this video sequence is not a good example of a hook/hold???

I do not necessarily mind the rule, I am just not sure why it was created. If someone was holding a jersey during a rebound, it would be an F1 right? There is no specific text/rule regarding holding a jersey but we have the F1 text/rule. Why was it necessary to have specific wording for this play created? Why couldn't they just use the F1 text/rule to address the situation. I think they reaction from said calls/fouls would have been the same and perhaps that is why they went out of their way to create specific language for it. IDK.

(thanks JRUT for video)

Nowhere in the rules does it say that is it an automatic intentional (NFHS) or F1 (NCAA-M) foul to grab a jersey.

I haven't seen the video yet. I was just commenting to the "growing pains" statement. The growing pains are self induced by Art Hyland.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I just viewed the video for the first time (I only watched the beginning to see the foul). Based on the rule that was written in the rulebook I don't have an F1. I'm not even sure if it's hook and hold.

But if the officials judged it was a hook and hold, Art Hyland put out a bulletin telling us to make it F1 automatically.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Only thing I would add is that this was not a "make-up call." Clear displacement cause by the black player on the rebound.

This is why you do not listen to commentators, coaches or players for that matter. They think that we do things with an agenda. A clear foul was called on the rebounding action after the FF1. Even if I dislike the FF1 being called, why would I make another call I did not like. BTW, all three officials looked at the play and must have drawn a similar conclusion. It is a dumb rule, but that is the rule. The best way to change a rule is to keep calling it. ;)

Peace

That's kinda the point, which you are missing of course. It is not needed.

On another note, it is not mentioned in the local newspaper flyer either but you will essentially find it in the NFHS case book around page 28.;)

Grabs Jersey ...
 

4.19.3 SITUATION C: Team A leads by three points with four seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Team A is to throw-in from a spot out of bounds on the end line. Players begin jockeying for positions just after the official has handed the ball to A1. B1, while trying to deny a pass from A1 to A2 (a) grabs A2’s jersey; or (b) pushes A2 from behind. RULING: In (a) and (b), it is an intentional personal foul designed to keep the clock from starting or to neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.

The above is not saying that all grabbing of the Jersey is F1, you need one of those circumstances. This hook and hold deal should be reserved for the situations where there's a danger of somebody getting hurt. I'm not even sure this video is a foul. The hook and hold should be something that last for a period of time and creates fanger

Bothered me that the first player to seek the intertwining of arms was the Purdue player. He peeks back at the MSU player, than reaches his arm down specifically to get it inside his. Did the MSU player then clamp when the rebound shot off to their left? Well maybe. I don’t think so but three officials did, so I’ll defer to them. My point, with apologies for sounding immature, is that the Purdue player started it.

We could mandate that all arm locking is an immediate foul. But then that’s all we’d be looking for and we’d miss lots of other stuff. And we’d be going to the monitor endlessly. There doesn’t appear to be a good solution here. The dubious FF1 rule and interpretations notwithstanding, its uncomfortable to deal with the reality that’s it’s often the second guy who picks up the foul in these situations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk