Flagrant 1 review

[fortmoney]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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]

Originally Posted by fortmoney

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]

Originally Posted by SmokeEater

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

he just contacted him first and knocked him down as a result.

Peace

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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