Originally Posted by Scrapper1 (Post 835671)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 835678)

My bad. Once FF1 has been called a video review cannot downgrade it to a common foul. Got my thought process reversed. :o

Looking at the video for the first time I'm calling it a FF1 in my game. B1 swings his arm, comes nowhere near the ball, and causes airborne A1 to land violently. May not be intentional but fits 4-29-2c.1, Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball, for me.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 835678)

Looking at the video for the first time I'm calling it a FF1 in my game. B1 swings his arm, comes nowhere near the ball, and causes airborne A1 to land violently. May not be intentional but fits 4-29-2c.1, Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball, for me.

Originally Posted by GROUPthink (Post 835694)

And quite frankly, it's time that we stop thinking of a FF1 as an "intentional" foul and start calling them more often in situations like this. The days of someone getting hammered like this should end.

I hope the terminology comes to the NFHS soon, too.