The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Championship Game Possible Flagrant 1 (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/90385-championship-game-possible-flagrant-1-a.html)

APG Tue Apr 03, 2012 01:58am
Championship Game Possible Flagrant 1
 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7XUY6TQSs1s" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

Some discussion in the chat room when this occurred. Upgrade nor not? Wind up, impact, (no follow through)?

grunewar Tue Apr 03, 2012 04:04am
Inquiring Minds Want to Know
 
.....and why no review?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Apr 03, 2012 08:28am
I know I am a Kansas fan, but this was nothing more than a PF committed against a player in the Act of Shooting. Sometimes collisions occur that just look bad and this was one of them. The shooter switched the ball from his right hand to his left hand as the defender coming from the shooter's right tried to block the shot. I would have expected the same call if it had been at the other end of the court. No replay needed.

MTD, Sr.

tref Tue Apr 03, 2012 08:46am
I thought it was worth taking a look at, but hey, I'm at home & they're still working.

Nevadaref Tue Apr 03, 2012 09:55am
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 Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 835538)
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 Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:55am
I almost don't even want to mention it
 
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:eek:

JRutledge Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:14am
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

APG Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 835538)
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 Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 835561)
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 Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 835561)
I had a flagrant 1 as well.
I'm all for players playing hard, but this was, IMO, a F1.

Camron Rust Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:32am
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 :).

Mark Padgett Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrutledge (Post 835560)
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 Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:00pm
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 Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 835581)
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.

Rich Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:15pm
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).

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:29pm
Camron and Rut both agree with me. No one will ever listen to them again. :p

MTD, Sr.

JRutledge Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 835590)
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

Tio Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:34pm
This is a flagrant 1 foul. You have a non-basketball play being made by the defender on an airborne shooter.

APG Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by letemplay (Post 835552)
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:eek:
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.

APG Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tio (Post 835594)
This is a flagrant 1 foul. You have a non-basketball play being made by the defender on an airborne shooter.
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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tio (Post 835594)
This is a flagrant 1 foul. You have a non-basketball play being made by the defender on an airborne shooter.

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.

Da Official Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:44pm
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...

JRutledge Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tio (Post 835594)
This is a flagrant 1 foul. You have a non-basketball play being made by the defender on an airborne shooter.
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

tref Tue Apr 03, 2012 01:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 835600)
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.

Welpe Tue Apr 03, 2012 01:44pm
Put me down for FF1.

JRutledge Tue Apr 03, 2012 05:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tref (Post 835602)
True story, but basketball plays that result in "excessive & unnecessary" contact still fit the description of a 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

Nevadaref Tue Apr 03, 2012 05:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 835590)
Camron and Rut both agree with me. No one will ever listen to them again. :p

MTD, Sr.
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.

tref Tue Apr 03, 2012 05:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 835651)
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
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 :)

Scrapper1 Tue Apr 03, 2012 07:43pm
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. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 835581)
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:

Quote:
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.

Raymond Tue Apr 03, 2012 09:18pm
Quote:
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.
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.

Rich Wed Apr 04, 2012 07:54am
Quote:
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.
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.

Nevadaref Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:32am
Quote:
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.
That's my opinion too.

Quote:
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.
I agree.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1