Championship Game Possible Flagrant 1

[Nevadaref]

If the NCAA truly wishes to protect airborne players, then this foul must be deemed a Flagrant 1. The contact is a big swing by the defender and he isn't near the ball. He really has no chance of blocking the shot cleanly.

PS I'm sure that will be the minority opinion.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the NCAA truly wishes to protect airborne players, then this foul must be deemed a Flagrant 1. The contact is a big swing by the defender and he isn't near the ball. He really has no chance of blocking the shot cleanly.

PS I'm sure that will be the minority opinion.

I'm with you on the swing. It didn't look like a legit block attempt to me either.

[letemplay]

Guys, is this not the infamous multiple foul no one wants to call? First KU player 15 gets him across the arm, causing his body to shift a bit and then second KU player 5 takes him out. If ever there was one, it could be here.
One thing I took notice of was the fouled UK player writhing in pain and holding his right shoulder area, and I'm thinking dislocation, something serious. No coach or trainer gets out there, but first to help him are two teammates that insist on pulling him up by his arms

[JRutledge]

I thought this was nothing. I think it was an unfortunate result, but not a Flagrant 1 at all. This was just an attempt at a block and the guy got caught off guard. I would like to hear John Adam's opinion but this was a basic play and not a F1 in anyway. If you call this a F1, then any foul that someone hits the floor you have a F1. You review elbow contact for the most part, not just a player hitting the floor.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

i thought this was nothing. I think it was an unfortunate result, but not a flagrant 1 at all. This was just an attempt at a block and the guy got caught off guard. I would like to hear john adam's opinion but this was a basic play and not a f1 in anyway. If you call this a f1, then any foul that someone hits the floor you have a f1. You review elbow contact for the most part, not just a player hitting the floor.

Peace

+1

[Raymond]

I could go with a FF1 but remember you CANNOT upgrade to a FF1 with video review. You have to make that decision on the court before going to the monitor.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I could go with a FF1 but remember you CANNOT upgrade to a FF1 with video review. You have to make that decision on the court before going to the monitor.

Ahhh, there it is.

[Scrapper1]

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. . .

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I could go with a FF1 but remember you CANNOT upgrade to a FF1 with video review. You have to make that decision on the court before going to the monitor.

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:

d. Determine if a contact flagrant foul occurred. When it is determined that a contact flagrant foul did not occur but an intentional [sic] personal, (men) contact dead ball technical foul or (women) a player-substitute technical foul for dead ball contact did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.

1. When there is a foul called for contact, the officials, with a plausible reason, may review the severity of that foul during the dead ball period following the call. When the ball becomes live, there shall be no further review of the made call.

2. When the officials fail to observe the foul, the time frame in 2-13.6 shall be used to penalize the infraction.

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Guys, is this not the infamous multiple foul no one wants to call? First KU player 15 gets him across the arm, causing his body to shift a bit and then second KU player 5 takes him out. If ever there was one, it could be here.
One thing I took notice of was the fouled UK player writhing in pain and holding his right shoulder area, and I'm thinking dislocation, something serious. No coach or trainer gets out there, but first to help him are two teammates that insist on pulling him up by his arms

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.

[Da Official]

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...

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If the NCAA truly wishes to protect airborne players, then this foul must be deemed a Flagrant 1. The contact is a big swing by the defender and he isn't near the ball. He really has no chance of blocking the shot cleanly.

PS I'm sure that will be the minority opinion.

I had a flagrant 1 as well.

[tref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I had a flagrant 1 as well.

Any idea on why they wouldnt take a look-see in this sitch?
Could Ayers have prompted them to?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I had a flagrant 1 as well.

I'm all for players playing hard, but this was, IMO, a F1.

[Camron Rust]

I did not have a flagrant 1 (or 2) ...and I'm a UK fan, so any bias I have would be towards a flagrant .