St. Mary's/Gonzaga rescinded INT

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, but perhaps this official used the "X" to signal flagrant, as we've seen a lot of officials do. This would make the review and subsequent "reversal" completely legal.

Or perhaps the off official consulted with the calling official prior to the monitor review and gave a contrary opinion (no, that wasn't intentional) and the calling official changed his own call without aid of the monitor. And then they used to monitor to ensure it wasn't flagrant (this part makes little sense, but who knows).

As you can see by my writing, the officials can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they get their explanation straight.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

As you can see by my writing, the officials can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they get their explanation straight.

This emphasizes the need for excellent communication among the crew.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Or perhaps the off official consulted with the calling official prior to the monitor review and gave a contrary opinion (no, that wasn't intentional) and the calling official changed his own call without aid of the monitor. And then they used to monitor to ensure it wasn't flagrant (this part makes little sense, but who knows).

As you can see by my writing, the officials can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they get their explanation straight.

This was actually my first thought.

[Rich]

And if intentional (excessive contact) can't be reviewed, it's one that should be reviewable. If flagrant / non-flagrant can be, there's no reason why this shouldn't be, either.

[Mark Padgett]

Maybe he used the "X" signal to indicate an "Xtra" hard foul?

[alillard88]

Below is what I just pulled off the online pdf version of the NCAA rules concerning use of the video equipment.


1. When there is a foul called for contact, the officials, with a
plausible reason, may review the severity of that foul during the
dead ball period following the call. When the ball becomes live,
there shall be no further review of the made call.

[M&M Guy]

The way I understand it, the monitor can be used to "upgrade" to a flagrant foul, or see if one occured that was possibly missed, but I believe one of the interps I saw said you cannot "downgrade" a foul once it's called.

The interp I read regarding the use of the monitor involving flagrant fouls from the NCAA-W side says:
Ruling 1: This foul cannot be downgraded. The intent of Rule 2-13.2.d is not to use the monitor to verify an already determined foul. Rule 2-13.2.d specifically states that the monitor can be used to determine IF a contact flagrant foul occurred. When officials determine that a contact flagrant foul DID occur, then the call stands and that flagrant foul cannot be ‘downgraded’. When officials are not sure IF a contact flagrant foul occurred, they are permitted to use the monitor to determine If the contact foul (observed or not observed) was flagrant. Per Rule 2-13.2.d, officials are reviewing the monitor to determine IF a contact flagrant foul occurred and “when it is determined that a contact flagrant foul did not occur but an intentional personal or a player-substitute technical foul for dead ball contact did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly.” The key is to review the monitor to determine if the foul is flagrant because once it is determined to be flagrant, it cannot be reviewed or ‘downgraded.’

So, as I read it, if the call was orginally an intentional, and they check the monitor to see if it should be "upgraded" to a flagrant (or intentional personal), and they determine it was not a flagrant, they cannot also change the original call to something less.