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

[IUgrad92]

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.

[jeschmit]

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



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.

[rockyroad]

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

[IUgrad92]

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?

[rekent]

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:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The contact still must be illegal in order to be a foul. Contact which occurs between two players in equally favorable situations that doesn't put either at a disadvantage for normal offensive or defensive movements should be ruled incidental and not a foul at all. That rule is still in the book.

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.

[jeschmit]

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

[bainsey]

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.

[twocentsworth]

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.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

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



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.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

There were no fouls committed by the defense while trapping. .

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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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.

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?

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.....

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...

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

The second one...eh not so much. Calling that in college won't get you many games.

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

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.