VCU v. Indiana

[APG]

Shouldn't have taken the 7-8 minutes (the 4+ minutes of the video plus the media timeout) to get this play right.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Shouldn't have taken the 7-8 minutes (the 4+ minutes of the video plus the media timeout) to get this play right.

And what do you have when you get this play right? If the wording of the rule requires this miniscule amount of contact to be a flagrant # anything, I have a problem with it.

[Nevadaref]

I don't mind the absolutism of the rule as it protects the safety of the players.
The physical nature of the college mens game had reached the point at which strong action needed to be taken. I salute the committee for doing so.
If the rule is written clearly and communicated clearly to the players and coaches, then enforced as stated, there won't be any objections. Look at it from the defender's standpoint. He has the right to be there (short of causing contact) BY RULE and thus shouldn't have to worry about taking one to the chops or other rough/intimidating tactics while trying to play tight defense.
Even tonight, neither Tom Crean or any of the Indiana players made a fuss over the call. This action is now seen as unacceptable at the college level. The players must be mindful of and in control of their arms.
We will likely see this rule change come to the HS ranks soon.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Shouldn't have taken the 7-8 minutes (the 4+ minutes of the video plus the media timeout) to get this play right.

And I'm not sure they got it right. There was hardly any contact...maybe not even enough to warrant even a common foul, much less a flagrant 1.

I don't think they intended to say that all contact above the shoulders by an elbow must be an F1, but that if contact above the shoulders involving an elbow was enough for a foul, it should be called an F1 (or F2).

In this case, it took a long time for them to even decide if there was contact or not. The defender didn't even flinch....and seemed fully unaffected by it. I doubt an F1 was the intent on this one.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think they intended to say that all contact above the shoulders by an elbow must be an F1, but that if contact above the shoulders involving an elbow was enough for a foul, it should be called an F1 (or F2).

That is exactly how it was explained to me and also what I read in the documentation when the rule change was published. The officials have the choice of incidental contact, F1, or F2, but a common foul is not an option.

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is exactly how it was explained to me and also what I read in the documentation when the rule change was published. The officials have the choice of incidental contact, F1, or F2, but a common foul is not an option.

That's the way it was explained to me as well. Also, in this year's "Major Officiating Concerns for Men," the following two points were made.


Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 Fouls for Elbow Contact
Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above or below the shoulders; swinging of the elbow is required for the foul to be classified as a flagrant 1 or 2 foul. Some incidental contact is being penalized improperly.

Use of Monitor
While technology is a tool which has enabled officials to “get the call right,” there is growing concern that the monitor is being used too often, especially on calls where officials are correct a high percentage of the time. Just because the rules say officials are permitted to go doesn’t mean they must go to the monitor.