You make the call

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just because it was a "basketball move" doesn't make it legal. Great call, great example of announcer cluelessness.

I don't see anyone on this board saying that being a "basketball move" makes it legal, just not flagrant. (perhaps you're referring to the announcers words which I didn't listen to).

I do see an obvious PC foul. I just don't see a flagrant.

He didn't aim, he didn't wind up, he just pivot with his arms up as is the case through the whole game. He just happened to have a defender step into that same space at the wrong time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't see anyone on this board saying that being a "basketball move" makes it legal, just not flagrant. (perhaps you're referring to the announcers words which I didn't listen to).

I do see an obvious PC foul. I just don't see a flagrant.

He didn't aim, he didn't wind up, he just pivot with his arms up as is the case through the whole game. He just happened to have a defender step into that same space at the wrong time.

Sorry, I was referring to announcer-speak and was actually thinking along your lines; "basketball moves" has no bearing on whether it's a foul or not; only on the level of foul.

I would only quibble by saying the defender was in that space before he pivoted in.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I do see an obvious PC foul. I just don't see a flagrant.

The latest instruction coming out from John Adams is that these fouls need to be called flagrant. This hasn't been well publicized yet, but if you keep an eye out this summer you will hear about it.

[Tio]

All 7 votes came from the coach of the white team...

[jearef]

From the NCAA memos:

Play: A-1 rebounds the ball and, while in possession of the ball, is closely guarded by B-1. A-1’s arms and elbows, and the rest of the body, move with a similar speed but A-1’s elbow contacts B-1. The official did not consider the contact to be excessive and assessed a player control foul against A-1. However, after the call, the officials have reason to believe that they may have missed a flagrant foul. They decide to use the monitor to determine the severity of the act. The officials decide that the act was not flagrant but declare the contact to have been intentional. The officials charge A-1 with an intentional personal foul and administer the penalty. Are the officials correct?

Ruling: No. The officials are incorrect. In this play, there are only two possible contact fouls. The player committed either a player control foul (personal) or a flagrant personal foul. When the contact is not considered to be excessive, a player control foul (personal) shall be assessed. When the player’s arm and elbow are swung excessively and contact occurs, a flagrant foul shall be assessed.

When I first read this post, I felt certain I had previously read that an elbow to the face/head of the defender was to be ruled flagrant regardless of the speed with which the elbow was swung, but now I can't find any such memo.

Getting old is a real pain.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jearef

From the NCAA memos:

Play: A-1 rebounds the ball and, while in possession of the ball, is closely guarded by B-1. A-1’s arms and elbows, and the rest of the body, move with a similar speed but A-1’s elbow contacts B-1. The official did not consider the contact to be excessive and assessed a player control foul against A-1. However, after the call, the officials have reason to believe that they may have missed a flagrant foul. They decide to use the monitor to determine the severity of the act. The officials decide that the act was not flagrant but declare the contact to have been intentional. The officials charge A-1 with an intentional personal foul and administer the penalty. Are the officials correct?

Ruling: No. The officials are incorrect. In this play, there are only two possible contact fouls. The player committed either a player control foul (personal) or a flagrant personal foul. When the contact is not considered to be excessive, a player control foul (personal) shall be assessed. When the player’s arm and elbow are swung excessively and contact occurs, a flagrant foul shall be assessed.

When I first read this post, I felt certain I had previously read that an elbow to the face/head of the defender was to be ruled flagrant regardless of the speed with which the elbow was swung, but now I can't find any such memo.

Getting old is a real pain.

I could be wrong because I had the sound off while watching the game, but didn't such a call just happen in the Va Tech/UConn game?

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I could be wrong because I had the sound off while watching the game, but didn't such a call just happen in the Va Tech/UConn game?

They reviewed it and decided that it was not excessive contact.

The FTs were for a T to Calhoun.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by sseltser

The FTs were for a T to Calhoun.

So what else is new?

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The latest instruction coming out from John Adams is that these fouls need to be called flagrant. This hasn't been well publicized yet, but if you keep an eye out this summer you will hear about it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The latest instruction coming out from John Adams is that these fouls need to be called flagrant. This hasn't been well publicized yet, but if you keep an eye out this summer you will hear about it.

According to the NCAA ruling posted by jearef (You make the call) it is dependant on excessive swinging. This case was not excessive swinging. It is certainly possible they're going to change the ruling but the published rulings do not support flagrant.