This was called intentional...
 

...would you call a flagrant?

YouTube - Derek Elston Trips Alex Marcotullio

Yes. I would rule there was an intent to injure.

no - intentional seems fit

Judgment call.

+1

Intentional to me as well.

Peace

I'm going intentional on this one.

Intentional

I have nothing.
Clearly the defender was making an attempt to move up the lane in anticipation of the player he is guarding making a high post flash.
The Northwestern player OBVIOUSLY is in no way coordinated enough to negotiate his cut through traffic and stumbles over both the "BIG TEN" logo painted in the lane and his own foot.
You can't reward a player for not being skilled
(This is also why you won't see me calling any IU games!:D)

Seriously, I would stick with intentional. It does not rise to the level of impeach...errrr Flagrant IMO.

Intentional

Intentional.

"A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act." (NFHS 4-19-4)

It was undoubtedly an intentional act. But it was not violent or savage, nor did it involve striking, kicking, kneeing or other violent contact.