NCAA review calls/taped earrings

[oc]

Interesting play. I agree with officials final call-intentional foul. Anyone who wants to argue this should be flagrant, I can see a case for that as well.
But I came to ask something different:

1. When can you review foul calls in NCAA?
2. Is there a reason player is allowed taped earrings?
3. At the 4:29 mark--Announcer still is using wrong terminology, correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95OkOX0tfEc

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by oc

Interesting play. I agree with officials final call-intentional foul. Anyone who wants to argue this should be flagrant, I can see a case for that as well.
But I came to ask something different:

1. When can you review foul calls in NCAA?
2. Is there a reason player is allowed taped earrings?
3. At the 4:29 mark--Announcer still is using wrong terminology, correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95OkOX0tfEc

Already discusse3d elsewhere in this forum, but

1) See NCAA rule book, rule 11. It's available free online.
2) Tape does not make earrings legal. Jsut because there's tape, doesn't mean there are earrrings.
3) Probably.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Just because there's tape, doesn't mean there are earrings.

I know that we can't assume, but we still wonder.

[bob jenkins]

We can ask whether the player has earrings, but if they say no ("it was bleeding"; "I'm just covering up a hole") then we are done -- we don't remove (or have them remove) the tape to look or feel the lobe to determine if there's an earring.

Sometimes a trainer or coach volunteers the information before we ask.

I have no idea what was done at the game in question.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We can ask whether the player has earrings, but if they say no ("it was bleeding"; "I'm just covering up a hole") then we are done -- we don't remove (or have them remove) the tape to look or feel the lobe to determine if there's an earring.

Agree.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by oc

Interesting play. I agree with officials final call-intentional foul. Anyone who wants to argue this should be flagrant, I can see a case for that as well.
But I came to ask something different:

1. When can you review foul calls in NCAA?
2. Is there a reason player is allowed taped earrings?
3. At the 4:29 mark--Announcer still is using wrong terminology, correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95OkOX0tfEc

1. That is a weighted question. There are a lot of times you can reveiw foul calls. I guess you could ask a more direct question. Also different between Men's and Women's basketball as well.

2. Have no idea. I was not there and none of us were.

3. Probably because Women's basketball went from one set of language for certain fouls and in the last few years changed that language to what they have now. Again Men's basketball I believe they would be more correct. Just like the term you used to start this post, the level matters what you mean by "flagrant." Any elbow play at the Men's NCAA level can be ruled flagrant, but that does not mean they have the same penalty based on what kind of flagrant foul you call (Flagrant 2 requires and ejection, Flagrant 1 does not).

Peace

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

We can ask whether the player has earrings, but if they say no ("it was bleeding"; "I'm just covering up a hole") then we are done -- we don't remove (or have them remove) the tape to look or feel the lobe to determine if there's an earring.

I phrase it in the reverse and will tell the coach "#12 can't play with earrings even if they are covered" - most coaches will pull the kid if he really has earrings and will not try to pull a fast one. I am not going to check any deeper beyond taking the coach's word for it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I phrase it in the reverse and will tell the coach "#12 can't play with earrings even if they are covered" ...

Yeah. First encounter will be with player in layup line. If I get, "No earring", I will followup with coach. If both are willing to lie, there's not much I can do about it.