The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Flagrant 1 review (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/90235-flagrant-1-review.html)

fortmoney Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeEater (Post 834365)
You gotta be on crack to pass on this play!

Any contact like this from the side or back on a player clear to the hoop on a fast break needs a call either FF1 or 2. No question he tried for the ball but still what he did should not be considered a basketball play.

Now this is my interpretation of the game and how I would have called it. So dissagree all you want we all are entitled to opinions. That and a nickel will change the call anyway! :)
So attempting to block the ball and making contact in the process isn't a basketball play? So every single foul needs to be at least a FF1?

just another ref Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortmoney (Post 834370)
So attempting to block the ball and making contact in the process isn't a basketball play? So every single foul needs to be at least a FF1?
Making hard contact in the back accompanied by a token swipe at the ball can result in a F1 call, as in this case.

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeEater (Post 834365)
You gotta be on crack to pass on this play!

Any contact like this from the side or back on a player clear to the hoop on a fast break needs a call either FF1 or 2. No question he tried for the ball but still what he did should not be considered a basketball play.

Now this is my interpretation of the game and how I would have called it. So dissagree all you want we all are entitled to opinions. That and a nickel will change the call anyway! :)
He didn't just TRY for the ball ... he GOT the ball - and before any (or at least significant) body contact!

MD Longhorn Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 834377)
Making hard contact in the back accompanied by a token swipe at the ball can result in a F1 call, as in this case.
Having trouble understanding how it's a token swipe at the ball when he actually gets the ball (all of the ball).

JRutledge Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 834377)
Making hard contact in the back accompanied by a token swipe at the ball can result in a F1 call, as in this case.
I totally disagree. He made contact with his side in an effort to get the ball. His contact was just first and a little excessive, but not a token swipe at all.

Peace

just another ref Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 834381)
I totally disagree. He made contact with his side in an effort to get the ball. His contact was just first and a little excessive, but not a token swipe at all.

Peace
Agreed.

The swipe was after the fact. He had no realistic chance to make a legitimate play on the ball.

JRutledge Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 834383)
Agreed.

The swipe was after the fact. He had no realistic chance to make a legitimate play on the ball.
The foul classification is not just based on how legitimate the attempt is. But to say he had no chance is a little hyperbole. He clearly had a chance to make a play on the ball, he just contacted him first and knocked him down as a result.

Peace

just another ref Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 834384)
The foul classification is not just based on how legitimate the attempt is. But to say he had no chance is a little hyperbole. He clearly had a chance to make a play on the ball, he just contacted him first and knocked him down as a result.

Peace
The word legitimate is always arguable. He made a play on the ball, but he went through the offensive player first to do it, which leads us to:

"Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;"

This is what happened. This was the call.

Raymond Mon Mar 26, 2012 01:42pm
It was hard contact from behind, that's why it was ruled a FF1.

And if you saw the last NCAA-M's video posted you will see a play from the beginning of the season in which a USC (Atlantic version) player fouls a UNC player from behind and B1 squarely hits the ball out of A1's hands but both players end up in the basket support. John Adams complains that the officials did not call a FF2. So there is no doubt that John Adams agrees with Mike Stuart's call in the Baylor/UK game.

rockyroad Mon Mar 26, 2012 02:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 834384)
he just contacted him first and knocked him down as a result.

Peace
Isn't that exactly why it was called a F1?

JRutledge Mon Mar 26, 2012 03:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 834395)
Isn't that exactly why it was called a F1?
Yes but JAR's claim that it was not a legitimate attempt at the ball. That is not the end all be all of this call.

Peace


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1