Intentional Tripping
 

UK MissSt game. Player is mad that a foul wasnt called on a dunk attempt. While staring down the official he kicks out and intentionally trips theoonent heading up the floor.

Called flagrant 1. What would be required for a flagrant 2?

Simple tripping someone? Not sure I would go Flagrant 2 either without seeing it to know for sure. It could be and I would not rule it out, but it would depend on how hard the player fell or to what extent they tripped them. Then again if there is video that would help too. APG where you at? ;)

Peace

If someone wants to give me a time stamp, I'll have the play up later.

Trying to trip, flagrant 1. Trying to kick, flagrant 2. JMO and the difference could be subtle and subjective.

2nd half, maybe 14 minutes to go. Just after UK's Davis is called for hanging on the rim.

Yes, it was a fun 2 minutes.

Foul occurred with 11:57 to play in the second half. Commentators actually used the phrase "point of interruption" to describe how play would be resumed. They got something right! :eek:

Wait, that's right, right? NCAA rules aren't my specialty.

Not for the flagrant, it's not. Or did they use it for the dunk?

I really thought they were going to eject him on that play. Especially considering it seemed they were trying to gain some sort of control of the game at that point. Plus if that attempted trip/kick had connected, there would have been a melee.

No, they used it for the flagrant. Only technicals are resumed from POI in NCAA, then, right? Flagrant personal fouls are resumed as a flagrant or intentional would in NFHS. That makes more sense. Still impressive for a commentator to use book language like "point of interruption" even if it's used at the wrong time.

If one judges an act to trip an opponent to be intentional, wouldn't it have to be a far stretch to not be ejectionable?

I hope APG can find the video!

During live action, the official whistled and signaled a T. It didn't appear he saw the kick/trip but was reaction to some verbal disagreement from the player.

They then went to the monitor and came out with a flagrant 1 but there was no mention of the T.

The officials had a somewhat rough time in that game at times. Some big stuff was miss called. They got some tough stuff right too.

The right guy had stepped to the for a pair of FTs after a rebounding foul at the opposite end. For some reason (announcers suggested an opponent pointed out that someone else should be on the line), they change the FT shooter to another player who wasn't close enough to the fouler to have been fouled.

Did they not go to the monitor for this???? This is one of the few things that I think is good about the monitor rule.

Channeling my inner BillyMac.

They can based on rule 2-13-2a:

1. Determine who shall attempt a free throw(s) when there is uncertainty.

Exactly. Which is why I'm wondering how it happened?!?! Once there's ANY doubt about the free throw shooter, they should've gone to the monitor to figure it out. Did they not do this?

They did not...and it pretty obvious who was fouled....the guy went flying after being shoved out of the way so the fouler had great rebounding position.