You make the call
 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rz3ErGNKnBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rz3ErGNKnBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

This play happened in a semi-final of Canada's "Final Four". The player is Ross Bekkering, the main player for the University of Calgary. This was Bekkering's second foul in the first 90 seconds of the game, and he had to sit for most of the first half, so fairly costly.

What do you think?

I think that the player was fortunate not to be thrown out of the game.

third choice, please
 

Gee, he would up and belted the other player in the face with an elbow.

Bye-bye.

Possession of the ball is not a license for assault.

I watched the game live and 'colour man" Leo Rautins kept harping back to Bekkering being on the bench with two "questionable" fouls.

Later in the game, there was a similar situation (not as severe contact) that was not called. Then Rautins wondered why the officials didn't call it. Good to see Canadian analysts are just as clueless as Americans.

That's probably a valid question if there was a no-call on a similar situation...even if there was less severe contact. Why wouldn't they call the second one also?

The first call was an absolute no-brainer. Not very consistent if they let something similar go.

I agree. He stepped into the defender and cleared out with an elbow to the head - lucky it wasn't called a flagrant.

Player-Control Foul all the way. I love announcers. ;)

Peace

Player control at the very least.

Player Control. Might have gone flagrant.

It could be a valid statement but his argument was that the first call was just a basketball move as the second involved excessive swinging of the elbows. I felt both plays involved excessive swinging of the elbows.

Ah, now I see. Makes sense now with more info. If he thinks the first elbow was just a "basketball move", then he's been a recipient of too many of those "basketball moves".

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

Great call....but I think we're missing the real topic of discussion here, those are some cool a$$ shirts the Canadian officials wear! I'm moving!!!