Well, the "hook and hold" is a type of Flagrant foul at the college level. And if you are so inclined to have a monitor for review, it can be ruled that way based on the video. We do not have such a mandate to call these Intentional or Flagrant here, but they are something we can consider under our rules, just not specifically addressed the same way. It is pretty automatic if you deem a player does a "hook and hold" move at the college level. Without the monitor, we have to make the determination on our own when we see it.

Peace

Rebounding Advantage ...
 

Marginal? Yes. I think that we can agree on that.

But Blue #2's intentionally and illegally extended arm into White #24"s chest kept White #24 three feet farther away from the basket and a possible rebound. This gave a much shorter Blue #2, with an inside position, a possible tremendous rebounding advantage over a much taller White #24.

Of course, White #24 didn't do himself any favors by intentionally and illegally holding on to Blue #2's intentionally and illegally extended arm, creating an ugly "scrum" situation.

And, of course, another problem is that the rebound didn't end up coming that way, so neither player really benefited from any illegal contact advantage.

Maybe the three officials were correct to play on.

Nice video. Lots to discuss and learn.

Be Sure To Get My Good Side ...
 

The only monitors I have in my mid-afternoon middle school games are the cell phone video cameras in the hands of adoring grandmothers.

Want To Come Up And See My Etchings ???
 

And, of course, the cell phone video cameras in the hands of hot, single Moms. I tell them that if they show me their's, I'll show them mine.

Etchings, that is.

I do not have many games with one, but it is allowed and the schools have to put up the equipment to make that happen. I had one last year at one of my D2 contests (doubleheader). Did not know until the second game, but we had one and used it for a particular type of foul situation.

Peace

I did not say the Blue player did not stick his arm out. He did, but that does not mean the contact started with him either. Again, the White player saw the arm and IMO used to to look like he was being pushed when he really was not.

Peace

Rambo On The Forum, Very Cool ...
 

Look at the video again, "First Blood" was Blue #2 intentionally and illegally extending an arm into White #24"s chest, which was followed almost immediately (split second) by White #24 intentionally and illegally latching onto Blue #2's extended arm.

I'm beginning to like a personal double foul more and more every time I watch the video.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=300&h=300

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...Xx1LfmXp9e.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This should be ruled a double foul.

In situations like this, the goal of officials is ty to get the first foul and penalize accordingly. Deciding on what that is was no easy task. The results among respondents are as follows: 26.1% charged Blue 2; 34.8% charged White 24; 26.6% charged double foul. A solid case could be made for any of these responses.

As the play develops, it appears the defender; Blue #2, extends his right arm into the torso on White #24. As this occurs, white #24 grabs the arm of Blue #2. Each of these actions is illegal and warrants a foul.

However, regardless of who fouled when. A key teaching point of this play is the actions of white #24. His approach to the contact would fall into the category of a "fool the official" play. After he grabs the arm of his opponent, he flails his arms upward and embellishes the contact. Officials should be aware that some players will "hook and hold" their opponent and then try to act as if fouled.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: The foul is on White No. 24 35%. This should be ruled a double foul 26%. The foul is on Blue No. 2 26% (including me). There is no foul on this play 13%.

That greater than 10% of the respondents (who have been trained in the same IABO way) viewed this as a "play on" type of action is interesting; leading one to infer that this series of actions wasn't really all that "foul-worthy" to begin with.
However, do you guys ever call a foul on a player for feigning a foul? I know its a foul in the NF rule book (chapter and verse: 10.?.?). But honestly don't think it s ever called, agreeably it would require temerity to do so.

I saw the video and know what I am looking for. I break down a lot of video, more than most. I see the action by the white player first. The blue player sticks his arm out for sure, but the white player starts the sequence by trying to swim the player. Again that is what I see and it is again a "fool the referee" type play. Touching is not a foul. It is displacing or holding or directing an opponent on some level. That did not take place IMO and I do not like the position to call a double foul here. Get the first action.

Peace

Temerity ??? Five Dollar Word (Mark Twain) ...
 

10-4-6-F: A player must not: Faking being fouled.

I've been playing, coaching, officiating, and observing since mid-1960's. Never saw it called.

I'm pretty sure that some Forum members have seen it called (or called it). Others have posted about warning the perpetrator, or calling a "fake" foul on the perpetrator.

Probably see it called more in soccer (flopping).

No Foul On This Play ...
 

I wondered the same thing myself.

There is a play in the IAABO "You Make the Ruling" Vol. 13 video that shows an official actually calling this. But the problem is that there are no parameters in the rulebook as to who to call this or not to call this. The NCAA has addressed this and gives many examples of how to rule on these kinds of plays. Does faking being fouled include embellishment? And if there is contact should this be the remedy?

This is play #4 under the "Block/Charge" section of the USB program BTW.

Peace

Plurality ...
 

Without Blue #2's arm stuck on his chest, maybe White #24 doesn't latch on to it?

35% (a plurality) of the IAABO members that commented on the video agreed with JRutledge.

Kansas Ref: I see your five dollar word, temerity, and raise you another five dollar word, plurality.

I do not see contact until the white player grabs the arm and tries to swim it. Then acts like he was contacted in a way to get you to think he was fouled. Just because you stick your arm out does not mean you fouled someone, even if you touch them. That is why we say see the entire play.

Peace