Clips: Gonzaga v. BYU

[Tio]

IMO - this is an obvious F1. First, Kaufisi is a football player. Second, after the hard foul, him standing over Olynyk and clearly saying something (probably not in the spirit of sportsmanship) would seal the deal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Tio

IMO - this is an obvious F1. First, Kaufisi is a football player. Second, after the hard foul, him standing over Olynyk and clearly saying something (probably not in the spirit of sportsmanship) would seal the deal.

Then it should be a foul, then a T. But not upgrade a common foul to a FF1 because of a dead ball action that would be a T.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Tio

First, Kaufisi is a football player. Second, after the hard foul, him standing over Olynyk and clearly saying something (probably not in the spirit of sportsmanship) would seal the deal.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Then it should be a foul, then a T. But not upgrade a common foul to a FF1 because of a dead ball action that would be a T.

I agree with Camron. There's nothing within the rule to let you upgrade to a flagrant because of what he did once the ball is dead. Obviously we don't officiate games in a vacuum but if you're calling the F1 then call it, either before the review - as they did here - or after. If he taunts him then get that too.

As for the football player aspect...I'm with the others who say "so?" He's not the only 6'7", 260+ basketball player around these days.

Originally Posted by canuckrefguy

While the post-contact taunting is not grounds technically for a FF, it is certainly common-sense evidence that the defender's actions were not routine.

We see taunting after perfectly legal shot-block attempts. Does that mean the actions of those defenders weren't routine? Again, if he taunted him call the Class A technical. IMO if you do that you control the situation that much better since it counts towards his five for DQ, meaning he's another step closer to being out of the game.