I think that too many people still think of a FF1 as an "Intentional Foul" and hesitate to call it because of the old connotation. Interesting that those with an NBA mindset are quicker to consider this flagrant (I don't put myself in this category, BTW -- I just tried to realize over this year that the NCAA went away from the phrase "Intentional Foul" for a reason).

Camron and Rut both agree with me. No one will ever listen to them again. :p

MTD, Sr.

I felt this way last night and said to the people around me that this was no more than a regular foul.

Peace

This is a flagrant 1 foul. You have a non-basketball play being made by the defender on an airborne shooter.

That contact by the 2nd defender is inconsequential to the play IMO. In fact, I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out.

I wouldn't say that...he was definitely attempting to block the foul...doesn't absolve him from what I thought was a flagrant foul, but this was definitely a basketball play IMO.

When I saw the play live, I saw the Kentucky player drive to the hope and went up to shoot a lay-up with his RIGHT hand. The KANSAS player came from the Kentucky player's right side to block the shot and the Kentucky shifted the ball from his right hand to his LEFT hand just before he was fouled. This was just one of those plays that looked bad but was not bad.

I think it looked bad because the Kentucky player actually made contact with a second Kansas player who was trying to get over to take a charge, and yes Snaqs, this could have been a multiple foul, :p.

MTD, Sr.

The illegal contact by the 1st defensive player by itself would not have caused the offensive player to hit the floor the way that he did. I also believe the contact by the 2nd defensive player on it's own would not have caused the offensive player to hit the floor the way that he did. The contact by BOTH defensive players caused that crash.

If you go Flagrant, then which player do you charge it against?

I'm with RUT on this one...

What???? :eek:

If this is not a basketball play, then what the heck is a basketball play? Defenders do try to block shots from time to time and if that is your opinion on that, then I guess all hard contact results from non-basketball plays.

Peace

True story, but basketball plays that result in "excessive & unnecessary" contact still fit the description of a FF1.

Put me down for FF1.

Excessive and unnecessary are judgment calls. Once again, if this is a FF, then all block shot attempts that result in a foul with a player hitting the floor are FF1 calls. I do not think that is the intent or purpose of the rule. If the guys were from behind maybe, but not when he is taking on two guys to try to go to the basket. If anything he tried to do something he could not do and that is why he fell. And I believe that is why it was not called anything other than a regular foul.

Peace

Does that make you reconsider your opinion? ;)

BTW I anxiously await the video presentation of John Adams for the training clinic prior to next season. I hope that this play is part of it. Will be great to see what he thinks the call should be.

I agree with you, what's excessive & unnecessary to one may or may not meet the standards for another.
That is obvious from the posts in this thread :)

1. I thought the wind-up made this a FF1. It wasn't simply an attempt to block the shot. It was an attempt to give the "hard foul".

2. I don't know why they didn't review it.

Because. . .

This is incorrect. The replay rules specifically allow the officials to use the monitor to determine if a flagrant foul has occurred, whether or not a foul (of any kind) was called on the play.

NCAA 2-13.2d: Officials may use courtside monitor equipment in the following situations:

Aside from the incorrect wording of the "intentional" foul, which is simply an oversight by the editor, the rule says you can go to the monitor in the situation that occurred in the championship game. The officials, IMHO, should have at least reviewed it.