Missouri vs. UCLA
 

with about 5 sec left UCLA gave a foul to stop the clock. Does anyone have a clip of that play? For those of you that saw it, do you think it was flagrant? Would you have called it intentional in your high school game?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yoR4qnZ6FsY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You could make a case, albeit a weak case, that the fouler was making a play on the ball. At full speed, I think I'd probably call that intentional.

I don't have a problem with no F1 call on the play, mainly because of the embellishment by the Missouri player.

That being said, of the four fouls UCLA gave in that sequence I think this one was the closest to an F1.

I think you are dead on..I was at the game and what a I saw was like an NBA type move where the defender contributed by hooking onto the defender making it look worse than the contact was.

The PAC 12 wants to meet with you :)

Looking at Monitor
 

NCAA Question related to this play...

Mizzou coach had no timeouts..if he requests the crew to look at monitor and the foul is NOT upgraded to Flagrant 1...would he be charged a timeout and since he has NONE..would a T be assessed for excessive TO?

In My High School Game ...
 

Intentional. Either a "regular" intentional, or a "hard foul" intentional. I may give some thought to a flagrant, but would probably not make that call.

I think it is a Flagrant Foul 1 or intentional in high school. I watched it as it happened from my hotel room and thought FF1 from the start.

For some reason the volume on the channel wasn't working and I couldn't hear how many fouls UCLA had. I can understand fouling once the team gets into their offense, but it looked like UCLA was fouling too early - as soon as the ball was in bounds in the backcourt.

From a strategy stand point I think they wanted to foul to run time off the clock, and ideally make Mizzou go the length of the floor in as little time as possible. Obviously Mizzou got into the frontcourt, and then the controversy happened.

I thought the same thing. UCLA had 2 fouls with about 10 seconds left. If your goal is to get to OT, why not just commit one foul - or at the most two - once the ball is in the frontcourt? That way if the game goes to OT you still have fouls to give.

If you're going to call intentional this didn't fall into the hard foul category. Even at regular speed it didn't look like the UCLA player put a lot of muscle into his move.

Actually, Missouri did have a time out remaining but...if he asked for a review and was out of time outs and it was determined an F1, F2 or F2 contact hadn't been commited then yes, Missouri would be charged a time out and pick up an administrative tech for its troubles.

I agree with this.

Pressey, who had one Hell of a game btw (19 pts 19 asst), jumps and spins as he's grabbed. This creates the impression that the contact was more severe than it actually was.

Unless that defender knows some serious, mysterious judo, there's no way from how he contacted a balanced dribbler that he could have produced that outcome without some assistance from the dribbler. On an airborne shooter, maybe.

Nice acting job.

Disagree. The two players' momentums were going two different directions, and it looked as though the defender held on just a touch too long, and that was what spun Pressey. I'm no physicist, just my opinion.

the defender did rip pressey hard but it looked like pressey spun and made it look worse

Looks to me like Pressey is trying to get a shot off as the foul happened. I think that makes it look worse as the two players are going different directions.

Do you guys feel that the UCLA player made a legitimate attempt to play the ball?

Let's just say he didn't make the most legitimate attempt to play the ball that he could have. The swan dive by Pressey aside, I can't recall seeing an F1 called on a play like that in an NCAA game, men or women. An intentional in a HS game is another story.

Yes, he would get the T.

Note that the coach may only request a monitor review to determine if there was an F2 personal or contact technical foul in NCAAM. In NCAAW, they can also request for an F1 personal or contact dead ball technical involving contact with an elbow above the shoulders. If the coach makes such a request, then the officials could decide that the foul was an F1 but not an F2. in this case, a timeout would still be charged since there was no F2 foul.

Here's the relevant portion of the rulebook:
Rule 2-13.2. Officials may use such available equipment only in the following situations:
d. Fouls.
1. Determine if a flagrant 2 personal foul, flagrant 2 contact technical foul or (women) flagrant 1 personal foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent or a (women) contact dead ball technical foul for illegal contact with an elbow above the shoulders of an opponent occurred. When it is determined that a flagrant 2 contact technical foul did not occur but a flagrant 1 personal foul, or contact dead ball technical foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.
b. A coach may request a monitor review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team.

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

What's keeping you from going over the edge?

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?

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

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.

Just a common foul, due to the embellishment.

With a possible travel before the dribble begins.

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.

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?

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.

I agree. I am not seeing anything in the contact that would have pulled that guy like a rag doll. And his reaction afterwards suggests there was some funny business.

Maybe I just saw too much acting this weekend to trust what players do a lot of the time.

Peace

+1

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.