Flagrant 1 Technical Foul

[The Ref]

Nada. I believe it was the momentum of the Penn State player that carried him to where he ended up. The Illinois player did not create the contact that sent the Penn State player sprawling.

[JRutledge]

I do not understand the origin of the play. Did they call a T here? Or was someone suggesting they should have?

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not understand the origin of the play. Did they call a T here? Or was someone suggesting they should have?

Peace

My bad...

There was an original foul call on the Penn State player. The officials went to the monitor to view the possible elbow/forearm after the play. After a 3-4 minute review, they ended up assessing a flagrant 1 technical foul on the Illinois player.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

My bad...

There was an original foul call on the Penn State player. The officials went to the monitor to view the possible elbow/forearm after the play. After a 3-4 minute review, they ended up assessing a flagrant 1 technical foul on the Illinois player.

For an elbow?

Peace

[The Ref]

A Flagrant 1 is the HS equivilant of an intentional foul. Can also be assessed for elbow contact to the shoulders and above.

I still don't see the Flagrant 1 in this play.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

For an elbow?

Peace

I'd more classify it a forearm but I'd say that's what they called the FF1 tech for

[SNIPERBBB]

Is there a limit on how much time they can use to review these replays?

[BktBallRef]

Yep, flagrant 1 technical.

Personal foul on #23, ball is dead. Then, left forearm to the chin of #23 by #2 . Easy call when you get to look at a replay.

[JRutledge]

That looks very inadvertent to me. They were fighting for the ball and the ball came loose. I think they should have had nothing. And John Adams said to not call this a flagrant foul if it is incidental or apart of basketball.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That looks very inadvertent to me. They were fighting for the ball and the ball came loose. I think they should have had nothing. And John Adams said to not call this a flagrant foul if it is incidental or apart of basketball.

Peace

Agree....nothing after the original foul.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That looks very inadvertent to me. They were fighting for the ball and the ball came loose. I think they should have had nothing. And John Adams said to not call this a flagrant foul if it is incidental or apart of basketball.

Peace

I agree with this.

And to the poster who asked about time limit...IDK about any limit, but they took a LOOOONNNNGGGG look at this play.

[APG]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I agree with this.

And to the poster who asked about time limit...IDK about any limit, but they took a LOOOONNNNGGGG look at this play.

I believe they looked at the replay...discussed...then looked at the reply again.

I don't believe NCAA has a time limit for replays...I believe that's true for football as well.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Yep, flagrant 1 technical.

Personal foul on #23, ball is dead. Then, left forearm to the chin of #23 by #2 . Easy call when you get to look at a replay.

According to the NCAA rule book, there is no such thing as a flagrant 1 technical. There is a flagrant 1 personal foul and a Class A technical foul. Don't know why they went that way with the terminology.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

According to the NCAA rule book, there is no such thing as a flagrant 1 technical. There is a flagrant 1 personal foul and a Class A technical foul. Don't know why they went that way with the terminology.

Actually it is a "Contact dead ball foul" (4-29-3g) which is specific to this kind of play if the ball was ruled dead. That is of course if we want to play the semantics games.

Peace

[stiffler3492]

I didn't know they could call a technical after video review.