Flagrant 1 review
 

APG-can you post video of the Flagrant 1 called against Quincy Acy in the Baylor/KY game? I want to say it occurred at 18 or 19 minutes in the first.

Nominee for quote of the year on this play. I guess this was Clark Kellogg?

"The officials have to make this call at full speed without the benefit of replay............but they did review it."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l6EjBE0j0lY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks-am I the only one who thinks this was a good hard foul?

I have no idea why they stayed with the flagrant one after review.

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

I'm betting they went with "excessive" contact to justify the call...and I don't agree with it. I actually agree with the announcer that this is just a hard foul. And with the benefit of replay, which the crew had here, I'm surprised they stayed with the call.

Could have something to do with Mike Stuart making the call.

Did they call the F1 at the point of the foul? Or did they upgrade it after reviewing it? If they called it during live action, they cannot "downgrade" it to just a common foul.

I like the F1 call here. Did anyone else see the shooter's head snap as he took the shoulder into his back/side. That is too much contact to just be a "hard foul" in my opinion. Not to mention, it sets the tone for the rest of the game. i.e. "We're not doing this stuff tonight."

If they ruled FF1 initially they can't downgrade to a regular personal foul. If they ruled it a normal PF initially they can only review to see if it is a FF2.

I think this is the type of play that illustrates why the NCAA went from IF to FF1. It wasn't an intentional foul as B1 did make a play on the ball, but it was hard contact from behind.

Well that's what I get for not looking up the rule... :p

That's the only thing I thought could be a rationale for upgrading to F1. If you look at the first 3-4 minutes of the game, they looked like they were trying to 'set a tone'.

There was no upgrade, FF1 was the original call.

No, you're not. In fact, it took 2 replays before I could call this a foul AT ALL. First angle looked like he got all ball and the offensive player tripped on himself. 2nd angle I saw the side contact that probably caused the fall... but no way IN HELLO was this a flagrant. Especially after review.

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?

Making hard contact in the back accompanied by a token swipe at the ball can result in a F1 call, as in this case.

He didn't just TRY for the ball ... he GOT the ball - and before any (or at least significant) body contact!

Having trouble understanding how it's a token swipe at the ball when he actually gets the ball (all of the ball).

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.

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.

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.

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