UT vs. UNC - NIT 3rd-place game
 

Anyone see the flagrant intentional against UT?

Your thoughts.

Well, my first thought is that there's no such thing as a flagrant intentional foul under either NCAA or NFHS rules, whether the foul happens to be personal or technical. It can be a flagrant foul or it can be an intentional foul. Pick one.:)

Fair enough...I saw the bones so I assumed intentional but was announced as a flagrant and the UT player was ejected.

Comments on whether the act was grounds for the flagrant.

From what i saw on TV I wasn't convinced it warranted ejection but I'm not the one working in MSG. :D

Not meaning to be punk or sound condescending but you are right. How are we to know what might have been said between the 2 players involved or what they did to each other previously. Alot goes into that type stuff.

I just saw it this morning on SportsCenter. They only showed it once and at full speed. No replay. Both the C and L gave the intentional signal, then the announcer said he'd been given a flagrant and was done for the night.

From the one angle I saw, it didn't look flagrant to me. He definitely fouled him hard from behind while the shooter was in a vulnerable position. But it didn't look like he "struck" him or took him to the floor. (Maybe he did, and I just missed it on the video.)

I don't want to sound like I'm second-guessing the officials. I'm sure they had a good reason to toss him. I just didn't see it in the clip that ESPN showed.

One replay I saw, he yanked him to the floor by grabbing his shirt.

Good enough for me. Buh-bye!

Agreed, hence why I posted because I thought the play warranted discussion, it certainly would of if it happended at camp.

If you remember I was going from:

I had a playoff game and was traveling. But I recorded the game and will take a look later tonight.

Watched the game today, fast forwarding through the commercials. :)

I don't think the initial contact was the issue. The fact that he pulled him down by the jersey and caused his head to hit the basket support is what got him ejected.

I was watching and listening while exercising on the eliptical and a few minutes after the play the announcers mentioned (don't know if they were informed by the officials or were just giving their opinion) Hanborough's head hitting the support was a factor.

Well crappy, I didn't see the game either but this year's book has what they call a *major concern for men*. Maybe this applies?

:confused:

Isn't that what I said?

:D <i></i>

It absolutely applies, but it doesn't say that a hard foul from behind MUST be flagrant. It says if the contact is severe, it should be flagrant, otherwise intentional. And from the one angle I saw, with no replay, I said it didn't look severe. But I didn't see him get pulled down or his head hit the basket support. After hearing about the full extent of the contact, I agree with the officials totally. I was in no way trying to say that they blew the call.

I didn't mean to start a pissing match on this but the recently departed Mr Annoying Grammar/Spelling/Useless Trivia Guy would have been the first to note that while you insist on using the word 'should' the wording of the major concern uses the word 'shall'.

As I say I didn't see the play so I have no opinion, I'm just putting this new bit of information out there. How you misinterpret it is up to you :shrug:

Me either. Just trying to justify my initial disagreement with the flagrant call (and later capitulation to the masses).

That's a first! :p

Who? Me??!

:p

In a case like that, you have to ask yourself was the contact warranted to send a player out of the game as well as him being suspended for a couple of games too. I know what the rules state, but I am guessing that the judgement of the officials was that it didnt warrant a toss. Just my two cents!!!

Just giving you affirmation. :D

Plus there might be a fanboy or two who doesn't respect our opinions but live and die by what the announcers say. ;)