Championship Game Possible Flagrant 1

[APG]

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

[grunewar]

.....and why no review?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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]

I thought it was worth taking a look at, but hey, I'm at home & they're still working.

[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

[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 .

[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.