Missouri vs. UCLA

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I do not have an intentional/F1...close but not quite.

What's keeping you from going over the edge?

[maven]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

What's keeping you from going over the edge?

Was the contact excessive or the result?

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by maven

Was the contact excessive or the result?

I think the more pertinent question about this play is did the player make a legitimate enough attempt to play the ball?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I think the more pertinent question about this play is did the player make a legitimate enough attempt to play the ball?

I agree with this as I dont believe the contact was excessive.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I think the more pertinent question about this play is did the player make a legitimate enough attempt to play the ball?

I think yes. I think he reached for where he expected to the ball to be but the dribbler shifted it away from him. If you look at the view from the lead's position you can see the hand of the defender reaching beyond the body of the dribbler towards the ball. He didn't get it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to get the ball.

Additionally, I look to see if the contact I see could cause the result that I see. I don't think it did. I think the dribbler embellished.

[JugglingReferee]

Just a common foul, due to the embellishment.

With a possible travel before the dribble begins.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think yes. I think he reached for where he expected to the ball to be but the dribbler shifted it away from him. If you look at the view from the lead's position you can see the hand of the defender reaching beyond the body of the dribbler towards the ball. He didn't get it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to get the ball.

Additionally, I look to see if the contact I see could cause the result that I see. I don't think it did. I think the dribbler embellished.

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.

[jeremy341a]

To those that say common foul due to embelishment, are you saying it would have been flgrant if not for the embellishment or are you saying it is common all the way and the embelishment makes it appear to be possibly flagrant?

[ballgame99]

For some context, UCLA had 2 fouls with like 10 seconds to go. They intentionally fouled 3 times in about 4 seconds. This was their 4th foul in 5 seconds and their 6th team foul. So the fact that they were strategically intentionally fouling made this one look much worse. The ballhandler had a clear path to the basket on a last second type play and was grabbed by the waist by a defender that was out of position, this looks like an intentional (flagrant 1) to me. The ballhandler definitely embellished a bit, but I don't see how that makes any difference in this being a flagrant 1 or not.

[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.