Vid request: UCLA v Arizona - F1
 

Without about 12:31 to go in the UCLA/Arizona game, a UCLA player runs into an already stretched out arm/hand of an Arizona player. Face to hand contact. Refs review and rule F1. Subsequently, Miller gets tossed.

Interesting play in that it brings up the case of one person simply running into another. Contact is in head/face area. Typically if an arm/hand was extended into the stationary head/face of another player, F1 would be standard ruling. What about the opposite? What about player moving head/face into stationary hand/arm of opponent?

First, let’s get the facts correct. The call on the court by John Higgins was a team control foul and when the play was reviewed the call stood as a common foul. Three seconds after UCLA inbounded the ball from the backcourt endline and was moving up the court, Miller said something unsporting to Tony Padilla and received his second tech of the game. (He picked up one in the first half after screaming at Higgins.)

Thanks Nevada. I clearly missed that. I thought after the review it was an F1 and I thought that was the reason Miller could not let it go as such and got his 2nd T. Good clarification and I was way off.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GW-9Hr9dB6A" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sean Miller is such an a-hole. Still upset that Ed T. Rush allowed himself to get fired behind that unprofessional coach.

This is a tough one, even on replay. A1 clearly doesn't see B1 and isn't really clearing space or warding him off. But, at the same time, his arm IS in motion so it's not quite as simple as B1 just running into A1's stationary arm/hand.

Curious to see what Tony would think about it after a second look.

Unless someone above me told me this play was an offensive foul, I'd be content with a no call.

And Sean Miller is a shit.

Common foul, not excessive or unnecessary IMO. No WIF.

Intentional Foul ...
 

NFHS: Contact above the shoulders, no excessive swinging: intentional foul.

Padilla made the original team control foul call. Tony and John went to the table together for the monitor review and kept it as a common foul. So he did get a second look. I have this as clearly warring off the defender with a straight arm which is out-stretched and not legal.

Thanks Indiana. Looks to me as if L had initial call, not Higgins who was C. Could the T have been avoided if the ball was inbounded on the side of the basket where the foul occurred and not on the side closest to Miller? That is a possibility.

Extended arms by post players has been emphasized in NCAA men's for a couple years now. The offensive player was not legal.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

NCAA Men's Major Officiating Concerns

"Post Play This area of the game continues to be a problem due to illegal actions by both the offense and defense. Dislodging by both the offense and defense must not be permitted. In addition, the warding off by the offensive player with a straight arm when he is attempting to post up is a foul when contact occurs. “Swim” moves by either the offense or defense are also fouls. The key to cleaning up post play is to call the first foul, keeping in mind that the defense is permitted to place a forearm on the back of a post player in the post area as long as equal pressure is being applied to the opponent. "

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Contact Above The Shoulders ...
 

Billy, those are all NFHS guidance for contact with the elbows. On the play in question was question the contact was made with an open hand. Additionally, that was published by the NFHS while the NCAA had a mandatory F1 ruling for contact above the shoulders, which was rescinded the next year returning all plays to the judgment of the on court officials. I would not apply that NFHS POE to such a play in a HS game.

Pointed Elbows ...
 

Knowing that the clip was from a college game, I clearly indicated on both of my posts in this thread, "NFHS", for those of us who officiate high school games.

However, Nevadaref's point about NFHS "elbows" is well taken.

Do high school officials have to limit these "contact above the shoulders" penalties to only "elbows", or can purpose and intent expand the interpretation to upper arms, forearms, wrists, and hands?

The purpose and intent of the Point of Emphasis was "reducing concussions and decreasing excessive contact situations".

Nevadaref does make a good point, "elbow" is specifically mentioned three times in the Point of Emphasis.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP._...=0&w=291&h=164