St. Mary's/Gonzaga rescinded INT

[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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did anyone else see this?
The ESPN highlight clip shows Gonzaga's #00, Robert Sacre, fouling St. Mary's #50, Omar Samhan, on an attempted dunk. The contact was on the arms and the fouled player fell awkwardly and hard into the padded supporting base of the basket.

The covering official was Rick Batsell, who immediately signaled an intentional personal foul, likely for excessive contact.

The officials then went to the monitor, probably to determine if the foul was flagrant, and upon resuming the game rescinded the intentional foul call and adminstered two FTs with the players along the lane for a normal personal foul.

I was surprised as my understanding of the monitor rules is that the determination of an intentional personal foul is not reviewable, and so the call on the court wouldn't have been effected by whatever the crew saw on the monitor.

I can only surmise that his partners talked him out of the initial decision. Anyone have any thoughts or insights?

Interesting, last night Duke/Clemson had the same situation, an intentional was called and crew huddled, reviewed it, and stuck with call. Not knowing NCAA rules, I had no idea it was reviewable.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Interesting, last night Duke/Wake Forest had the same situation, an intentional was called and crew huddled, reviewed it, and stuck with call. Not knowing NCAA rules, I had no idea it was reviewable.

Fixed it for you... But I did see the play last night and even as a Duke fan (let the berating begin) I did not think it was an intentional foul. It was a play that had a lot of speed and momentum and players went down hard. But I do not think there was any ill intent or that the contact was excessive based on the type of play going to the hole.

I did however throw up in my mouth as I had to listen to the dumba$$ announcers once again spout off at the mouth vehemently disagreeing with the call and saying over and over again that the defender made a play at the ball.... When will these talking heads ever understand that "making a play on the ball" is not necessarily relevant to calling an intentional foul.

Puke.

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

Fixed it for you... But I did see the play last night and even as a Duke fan (let the berating begin) I did not think it was an intentional foul. It was a play that had a lot of speed and momentum and players went down hard. But I do not think there was any ill intent or that the contact was excessive based on the type of play going to the hole.

I did however throw up in my mouth as I had to listen to the dumba$$ announcers once again spout off at the mouth vehemently disagreeing with the call and saying over and over again that the defender made a play at the ball.... When will these talking heads ever understand that "making a play on the ball" is not necessarily relevant to calling an intentional foul.

Puke.

As a Wake Forest fan, I too disagreed with the call after looking at the replay, but the calling official (Natili, maybe?) was right there and had a good look at it. But I too was interested that they went to the monitor. I can't see them possibly looking to upgrade to a flagrant, so maybe they were looking to downgrade. All purely speculation though.

All I can find in the NCAA book is that officials can go to the monitor to determine the severity of the foul. IIRC, this is a new rule that was implemented in the middle of last season in response to some "high profile" elbow incidents. The rule seems open enough to allow the downgrading of an intentional foul, but perhaps there is an NCAA interpretation to the contrary.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

Fixed it for you... But I did see the play last night and even as a Duke fan (let the berating begin) I did not think it was an intentional foul. It was a play that had a lot of speed and momentum and players went down hard. But I do not think there was any ill intent or that the contact was excessive based on the type of play going to the hole.

I did however throw up in my mouth as I had to listen to the dumba$$ announcers once again spout off at the mouth vehemently disagreeing with the call and saying over and over again that the defender made a play at the ball.... When will these talking heads ever understand that "making a play on the ball" is not necessarily relevant to calling an intentional foul.

Puke.

Also didn't think it was intentional, and not knowing the rule, a previous post mentioned you can only 'upgrade' a foul not downgrade it. I was getting sucked in by announcers who said the review was to see if it was going to be downgraded. What's the skinny?

[paxsonref]

In this situation, when an intentional was called on the floor, the officials can go to the monitor to review if in fact the foul should have been a flagrant foul. They must review this play before the ball becomes live again. Upon review, they only have 3 options.
1. upgrade to a flagrant
2. stick with the intentional
3. decide that there was no foul on the play (for example, if it was actually a teammate that knocked over their own player....obviously not the case here)

There are NO options here that allow you to downgrade to a regular shooting foul and not an intentional. If the play happened as described, this was done incorrectly.