Flagrant 1 review

[SCalScoreKeeper]

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.

[just another ref]

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."

[APG]

[SCalScoreKeeper]

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

[APG]

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

"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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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.

[APG]

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

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

it sets the tone for the rest of the game. i.e. "We're not doing this stuff tonight."

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'.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

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

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.

[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!