Missouri vs. UCLA

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I think that's about as thorough an explanation as we'll see. I see what you're saying, but I think he grabs Pressey around the waist with the same hand he reaches for the ball with, in addition to wrapping his hand around the backside too.

That's exactly what happened on the play. It was obvious in real time and even more so on the replay.

I have an IF at the HS level. Since I'm not an NCAA official, I won't pass judgement. From a college hoops fan perspective, though - the fact an F1 was not called was extremely surprising.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Clear path? Really? There were two more defenders between the point of the foul and the basket that could have easily cut him off and he only got by the 3rd defender as the foul was occurring.

Clear path may be overstating it, let's just say A1 was in an advantageous position (3 on 2) and was grabbed by the waist by an out of position defender.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Clear path may be overstating it, let's just say A1 was in an advantageous position (3 on 2) and was grabbed by the waist by an out of position defender.

What difference does that make? That is not the reason we call a F1 or not at the NCAA level. It is called because they are either not playing the ball or they cause some level of excessive contact. I would call this the same no matter what advantage they had on the break. I just think the player was trying to sell the call rather than really get fouled that hard.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

I've got a common foul. Defense is reaching for the ball with both hands to make sure they get the ball or the contact on a reach to earn a foul call. Ball carrier leaves his feet and throws himself off balance to sell a shot attempt on contact ends up getting hit from both sides while twisting himself off the floor. Fact that he lands hard doesn't make it intentional or flagrant since the contact is not what is sending him to the floor hard.

[Tio]

I have a flagrant 1. No attempt to play ball by white defender. The illegal contact by white #3 causes the offensive player to hit the floor hard.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What difference does that make? That is not the reason we call a F1 or not at the NCAA level. It is called because they are either not playing the ball or they cause some level of excessive contact. I would call this the same no matter what advantage they had on the break. I just think the player was trying to sell the call rather than really get fouled that hard.

Peace

LOL...I'm just going to agree to disagree on this one, Rut.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DLH17

LOL...I'm just going to agree to disagree on this one, Rut.

That is fine, but I think a guy that flys around like that looked like something in a video game with a first person shooter. It did not look like to me that was call caused because of contact and contact alone.

Peace

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is fine, but I think a guy that flys around like that looked like something in a video game with a first person shooter. It did not look like to me that was call caused because of contact and contact alone.

Peace

Whaaaa?????!!!!!! lol...

Aside from Pressey flinging his arms out (mainly due to him trying to maintain any kind of balance), there was nothing embellished on that play.

The dude is tiny and moves quicker than the speed of light.

A bigger player grabbed him by the jeresey at his waist and pulled while Pressey was trying to slide by.

Physics. Helicopter. Blackhawk Down.

Ok...I'm just arguing for the sake of fun now. It is what it was. This "fanboy" has moved on. lol.