VCU v. Indiana

[APG]

Originally Posted by grunewar

~2:50 left in first half - interesting Flagrant 1 called on Indiana for swinging the elbows by the offense and hitting a defender in the face. Long delay. Tom Eades got lots of air/face time.

[Nevadaref]

I was at this game. The crowd had no idea what was going on because the Trail called a handcheck foul on the play and the whistle triggered a media TO.
During the media TO the officials went to the monitor. Shot clock? Game clock? Intentional dead ball contact? We had no clue. No replays were shown in the arena. So seeing the clip posted by APG is the first time that I'm seeing what took place.
So what we have is a missed flagrant 1 by the Trail, and instead a common foul on the defender. The officials penalized both fouls after looking at the monitor. The defensive foul wasn't shooting and it wasn't bonus yet (if I recall correctly), so 2 FTs were awarded to VCU along with the ball to resume the game.
I wonder what the would have done had the VCU foul warranted FTs. Do they shoot those first, despite that foul occurring second in order to award possession to VCU?

Also, I met Camron Rust at the games today!!! Really cool.

[stiffler3492]

Full disclosure, I'm an IU grad.

Obviously the flagrant was called and the right call, but do you all agree with the absolutism of this rule? Seemed like a basketball play to me. Seen others called this same way as well.

[just another ref]

Not a great testimonial for the value of replay.

jmo

[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.

[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]

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 Nevadaref

Also, I met Camron Rust at the games today!!! Really cool.

Indeed it was...meeting you and you other friends too.

Hope you all have a great rest of your visit before you head home.

[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.

[APG]

I don't care either way about the absoluteness of the rule. What I'm concerned is it took nearly 7-8 minutes to come to a conclusion on replay. The only time replay should take that long is if the officials are going to the monitor because a fight broke out since that usually involves multiple people...or for whatever reason, there's an issue with the replay equipment.

[kwv001]

Can someone familiar with NCAA replay rules explain the circumstances in which replay can be used on a play like this?

We can certainly debate the merits of the elbow rule, but the issue I have with this is that on the floor this was ruled to be either no contact, or incidental. The call that stopped play was a foul on VCU after this occured. Then they spend 7-8 minutes reviewing a call that wasn't made?!? I would have no issue going to the replay to determine F1 or not if this contact had been called on the floor. I think the last thing we want to do is pass on something marginal real time, with the thought that we will look at the replay at the next stoppage and make a decision then.

Another question - how was this review initiated? Who asked for it? What if the foul that did stop play didn't initiate the media time out?

[APG]

Originally Posted by kwv001

Can someone familiar with NCAA replay rules explain the circumstances in which replay can be used on a play like this?

We can certainly debate the merits of the elbow rule, but the issue I have with this is that on the floor this was ruled to be either no contact, or incidental. The call that stopped play was a foul on VCU after this occured. Then they spend 7-8 minutes reviewing a call that wasn't made?!? I would have no issue going to the replay to determine F1 or not if this contact had been called on the floor. I think the last thing we want to do is pass on something marginal real time, with the thought that we will look at the replay at the next stoppage and make a decision then.

Another question - how was this review initiated? Who asked for it? What if the foul that did stop play didn't initiate the media time out?

I'm sure someone else will expound more throughly but if the officials have plausible reason to believe a flagrant one for illegal elbow contact above the shoulder has/may have occurred, they are permitted to go to the monitor. In addition, a coach can request the officials to look at the monitor (in challenge fashion similar to the NFL) if they believe the officials missed a FF1 illegal elbow above the shoulders. If a FF1 isn't assessed, the coach is charged a timeout and has used his one "challenge." If he's successful, he doesn't lose the timeout.

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by kwv001

Can someone familiar with NCAA replay rules explain the circumstances in which replay can be used on a play like this?

I'll post the rule (kind of long) below. The interesting thing here is that it seems that in NCAAM, the officials can only go to the monitor to determine if there was a flagrant 2 foul, which clearly did not occur in this case. On the other hand, maybe the coach requested s review?


NCAA 2-13.2 Officials may use such available equipment only in the following situations:
d. Fouls.
1. Determine if a flagrant 2 personal foul, flagrant 2 contact technical foul or (women) flagrant 1 personal foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent or a (women) contact dead ball technical foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent occurred. When it is determined that a flagrant 2 contact technical foul did not occur but a flagrant 1 personal foul, or contact dead ball technical foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.
2. When officials err and fail to observe the fouls according to 2-13.2.d.1 or a fight, they are permitted to correct and penalize these infraction(s), with the use of a monitor review, when the act occurs:
a. When there is a foul called for contact, the officials, with a plausible reason, may review the severity of that foul during the dead ball period following the call. When the ball becomes live, there shall be no review of the made call.
b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team.
a. When the game clock was stopped, it must be corrected:
1. During the first dead ball after the clock was properly started.
b. When the game clock was running, it must be corrected:
1. During the first dead ball after the clock was properly stopped; or
2. Before the second live ball when the ball became dead after a successful goal but the clock continued to run.
3. When it is determined that a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a fight did occur within the prescribed time
frame, the infraction(s) should be penalized and play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the offended team where the stoppage of play occurred to review the flagrant act. (Men) When a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a contact dead ball technical foul is assessed, play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the offended team at the division line on either side of the playing court. Any previous activity before the monitor review shall not be canceled or nullified. When it is determined that a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a fight did not occur or did not occur within the prescribed time frame, play shall be resumed where the stoppage of play occurred to review the act.

[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.