Purdue/Villanova PC upgraded to Flagrant 1 - APG video request
 

Towards end of game (under 1 minute to go) a Purdue player was called for a player control foul that ended up be upgraded to a flagrant 1. The delay in the game was quite significant and all 3 officials went to the monitor at some point to review.

Would be interested in discussion on the play and the decision to upgrade.

Don't know how long this will stay up, but here's a YouTube vid with this play:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NOaqAqBQV2M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

For the record, I do not agree with the F1 call here. He was hit with the offensive player's triceps, not elbow. Offensive foul should have been the call, imo.

Interesting play. One one hand, it seems like this is the exact type of play that the NCAA and the NFHS are targeting with the emphasis on elbow contact above the shoulders. So the upgrade to FF1 seems justified.

On the other hand, this type of play really bugs me. If the officials had called any of the fouls committed by the defenders - and there a a couple there - then the offensive player would not have had to start whipping the ball around like that. I think we are going to see lots of plays like this, because of the elbow emphasis...if we want to clean it up, we need to clean up all the stuff that leads up to the elbow part.

My thoughts exactly. Get the first foul, then you won't see the elbow fouls.

Is a player not allowed to pivot with arms being able to move at same speed as hips? Also appears that the contact was with the under-side/tricep area of the arm verses the elbow. Does that have any bearing?

I'm sorry, I know the POE for the year and overall sensitivity to head contact, but that in no way was deserving of a FF1, I just don't see it. PC I guess I can see. From back over on the Elbows revisited thread: While I know the above was directed at NFHS and not NCAA, the concept is still the same and seems to be exactly the Purdue case.

The Purdue guy's arm (bicep, triceps, whichever of the -ceps it is) brushed the defender's forehead and the defender magically flew backwards in a NBA-esqe manner like he had been shot.

It also looks like the official could've gotten away with calling Purdue OOB on the play... At least the Villanova HC thought so...

For your consideration...
 

While I don't deny the tricep contact to the head, I'm eager to see whether Nova's #4 gets the Oscar nod this winter.

If the official, Bo Boroski, decides to call a foul on the offense - then this clearly needs to be a flagrant 1 foul. There wasn't any illegal contact other than to the defenders head.

This is EXACTLY the type of play that NCAA and NFHS is focusing on. The "elbow contact above the defenders' shoulders" is NOT only on rebounding plays. It can play ANY PLACE on the floor.....

There were no fouls committed by the defense while trapping. Frenzied activity in a confined space does not equal a foul. Call the first foul?,....YES....but make sure it was a foul - don't guess.

I have first foul hand check on Blue 24.
Second foul, I have offensive foul on 21 white for displacement of Blue 24.
Then, at least in HS I would consider the excessive swinging of the elbows violation while he still has the ball low.
Then maybe another foul each on both defenders for hands all over his arms and back.
And then I am going to go with the PC with the elbow. Watching the vid over and over, still not sure that I would upgrade it after the review because not really conclusive if he made contact with the elbow.

This is at least what I saw after watching the video multiple times in slow mo. Full speed I probably would have had the same call. I don't know.

Seriously??

No hand check/push by the initial defender? No grabs or slaps by the second defender to get there?

You must have some pretty rough games when you are on the court.:cool:

I agree with the first.
The second one...eh not so much. Calling that in college won't get you many games.
Third one I agree.
Even the PC, tricep to the face. eh, I hate this new sissy, pansy rule. Knee-jerk, over-reacting, overly sensitive society. When will padding be introduced to basketball?

Watch the video... did the ELBOW make contact with the area above the shoulders? No, the triceps did... If I read the rule correctly, F1 fouls are in regards to ELBOWS contacting above the shoulders.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider the triceps part of the elbow...

Do you make this statement based upon your personal experience from all of the college games that you've officiated?

From the college camps Ive gone to and made these calls and been told the exact same thing. Being reamed out for "making a 50/50 call that doesn't matter a lick in middle school and in college has way more riding on it" ya. Go ahead make this call. Even I, with all my high school experience, think is borderline pushing it will tell you it won't win you squat.

deecee's right, to a certain extent.

I've seen officials get nailed by evaluators for calling defensive fouls in these situations.

Let's say the elbow never gets thrown, and the official calls a foul on #24 - how many people would be here saying he was too quick on the whistle?

BTW - good offensive call, but not sure that qualifies as "flagrant". Definitely some embellishment by the defender, though.

After reading a handful of your posts from the past several days I was thinking that you had finally started to mature, but clearly that isn't the case. You are still popping off like a 16 year-old.
You are ticked because you tried to tell someone how it is at a level that you've never worked and someone else called you on that. In the future, stick to giving advice about what you know.

Nevada, I could care less about what you think. Tell that to the D1 evaluators that chewed me out over such 50/50 calls. Im not arguing the one that was called. I was arguing the the borderline not so offensive call in the beginning of the trap.

When you get an evaluator tell you in these situations the last thing they want to do is rest their hat on a 50/50 call especially when they are just starting off. Well there is reality, and there is wishful thinking. In the future, stick to giving advice about your gummy bears and gum drops.

Yes....seriously. IF you think that a hand check foul is warranted (85ft from the basket on a stationary ball handler who is making no attempt to get thru/out of a trap!), you won't be working too many college games (whether D1 or otherwise).

The ONLY official that could see that call is the Center official - the one who has the same view as the TV camera. IF you make that call as the Center, you won't be working too many college games (whether D1 or otherwise).

No matter what position you're in, the second defender - #4 - didn't commit a foul in any way, shape, or form. IF you make that call, you won't.....never mind - you know the drill.

Another poster who feels compelled to tell people this. Sigh.
Do you know what level of play rockyroad has worked?
I don't think that he needs you to tell him what calls are acceptable.

Don't you love it?

Someone goes to a few camps and suddenly they know what should be called at any and every level! :p

Handchecking? Really?

I do not have anything but a FF1 for the offensive player. No RSBQ was affected by the contact IMO. And I have been to camps and worked college games. That to me is just part of basketball in a trap. If anything maybe you could suggest that you could call a foul on the arms early, but that would be a stretch IMO too. And I feel that way whether it is high school, college or middle school game other than the FF1 classification of course.

Peace

My college schedule only allows me to attend camps as a clinician.....

I wish you a season of safe travels, good health, and correct calls.....

I didn't see any defensive fouls that I'd call, but that doesn't give me the right to make assumptions of those who did. I'm more inclined, in fact, to take a second look at this given the disagreement here and what I know about those who disagree with me.

All I know is that as soon as W21 catches the ball he had multiple (2-4) hands in constant contact with him. How do we expect offensive players to react in this scenario with that being said? Are we not allowing a potential escalation of frustration by the offensive player when these defensive players hands are hitting, pushing, poking at/on the offensive player and is deemed acceptable play? And then we penalize the offensive player.... Something doesn't make sense here.

I have to say, I think this is a good example of an area that officials as a group do not handle well.

Look at the video again and tell me there isn't illegal contact by the defenders on the guy with the ball. I'm not saying you bail out the offense with a foul for brushing up against them, but #24 in particular, clearly hacks the white player at the beginning of the trap, and then again a few seconds later. Both defenders also clearly leave their cylinder and initiate contact (body or hands) at least once.

We are making it so that one side of a competitive situation CLEARLY has an advantage from the officials. We allow aggressive chest bumping and hands contact from the defender, but do not allow the offensive player to pivot or rotate his body in an attempt to clear space or facilitate a pass. And to make matters worse, we're now "extra" penalizing the offensive player if they initiate contact by declaring it flagrant.

If you're the white coach in this situation, are you not asking the officials why the blue team was allowed to hack and grab at your guy?

(now in actuality, if you're the white coach you're ripping your guys for passing it into a coffin corner, but that's beside the point :D)

I think there needs to be more consistency on both sides of the ball in these situations - and evaluators need to more closely examine their tendency to penalize a referee that calls illegal defensive contact - that creates an advantage in the backcourt - by calling it a "ticky-tack" or "soft" foul.

I'm not saying you call a cheapie. But before the "elbow" on this play, there is at least one clear defensive foul. You can't allow one side to do whatever the heck they want, and make the other side stay virtually still.

I disagree. The offensive player got himself into that mess and created just about all of the contact as he was flinging himself around trying to figure out what to do. Most of that supposed chest bumping was really caused by the movement of the offensive player, not the defenders moving into him. Even the hands were mostly due to the offensive player flailing around, not from the defenders doing anything.

NCAA Video Bulletin #3:

1. There should have been a first foul on the defense
2. The Trail needed to stay back further to get a better angle of all the action in his primary
3. Once the PC foul was called and reviewed at the monitor the officials CORRECTLY upgraded it to a FF1.

You are reading the rule incorrectly. The rule does not say the contact has to come from the elbow itself:

Rule 10-1-Art. 13

Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:

a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul

b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36-7 is a flagrant 2 foul.

c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

Wow...imagine that. There should have been a foul on the defense first...hmmmm.

Who woulda thunk it? :D

Super slo mo seems to reveal there may not have been any contact by the offensive player! In fact, there seems to be a little bit o' flop committed by the defender that goes down.

Now, back to actual game speed. Yes, there was contact above the shoulders with an elbow.

edit: not a real good decision to inbound the ball to the corner where the D can set up an easy trap, either. some boneheaded coaching and/or execution there on offense too.

Yes, Rocky, but don't call that if you want to work college ball!

This thread made me wonder if a couple of the guys here think going to the nurses office or a PrimaCare facility qualifies as attending a clinic.

This play is addressed in 2012-13 NCAA Men's Basketball Video Bulletin - 3 (posted 11/27/12).

So the NCAA Bulletin says that a defensive fouls should have been called, yet if you want to work college ball you better not call that. If that's not mixed signals I don't know what is......

MD was joking.

Yes, that was sarcasm, as several of us made the point that a foul should have been called on the defenders, only to be told by others that we wouldn't be working D-1 ball very long if we made those kinds of calls. :rolleyes:

Really?

Yup.

... ;)

Yeah, totally missed he posted that... obviously. My fault BNR.

Wondering where twocentsworth is...and wondering if he got the bulletin.:D

lol. +1

He's off to other threads making a muck of things there. I suspect he'll be back here eventually.

You spoil all the fun. :D If you were that Adam dude I would tell you to "shut up"

Maybe he was the official in the video? :cool:

Ouch!!:p

Shutting up, Sir.