Video Request: Gonzaga v. BYU
 

11:01 in the second half there was a Flagrant 1 called that was talked about as a possible Flagrant 2.

I just wish the damn commentators would know that it was not a Flagrant Technical Foul. But that is asking waaaaayyyyyy too much. :rolleyes:

Peace

You should probably also get the delay of game whistle and no call at about 17:30 left in the second half. It'll generate more interesting discussion.

I think John Adams confused the staff, they had issued Gonzaga a delay of game warning for crossing the boundary plane during inbound earlier in the game. Then they issue another "warning" for grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref.

I still believe that should have been a technical, but because of that point of discussion (emphasis) by Adams, I believe they thought they needed an official warning for that particular act (grabbing the ball out of the rim and throwing it to the ref).

My two cents.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Clips: Gonzaga v. BYU
 

Delay of Game Warning:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TklFaNnoRro" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Flagrant 1 Personal Foul:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/XU2CaYaQfAM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks like a typical delay of game warning, what discussion would there be?

Not totally sure on the flagrant, but Flagrant 1 looks ok to me.

Looks like the way to get a flagrant foul might be to find a defender in questionable position and run into his arm.

Sure, it is a foul and even a hard foul but 90% of the impact, even though the defender was the one that did foul, was still from the offensive player. The arm swing only came down after the offensive player ran into his triceps and the arm "swing" only came across the shooters arms, not his head.

Are we creating a new monster bigger than flopping? If a player gets the idea they can get 2 shots and the ball by running into an opponents arm, this could get silly.

The last time that I looked up this particular rule there was a difference between NCAA and NFHS.
About four years ago the NFHS added a warning for water on the court following a TO or intermission and also changed its rule such that one warning was issued for any of the four delay situations and the next infraction resulted in a team technical foul. The NCAA rule remains that the team gets a warning for each specific kind of delay and one warning doesn't apply to the other situations. The team must indeed commit the same delay infraction a second time in order to earn a T.

John Adams commented on this game tonight (Thursday) already? :confused:

Peace

So are you saying Camron that this should not be a Flagrant 1? Or are you saying that we should not call a foul? I guess I am confused by what you are suggesting should be called here.

Peace

I watched it live - the joys of working in the middle of the night - and I wasn't convinced it was an F1 when I first saw it. I'm still not entirely convinced. It seems like the BYU kid was penalized for being a big, strong kid more than anything else.

BYU's kid probably has some history based on his taunting after the play. If he got a FF1 on that play I'm not losing any sleep over it.

He issued a bulletin about scoring teams grabbing the ball out of the net and throwing it to an official. It was a rather wordy bulletin that also incorrectly identified the type of penalty. He sent out a correction the same day.

Not worthy of a warning.

Not worthy of a FF1 (shooting foul only)

Both based just on the clip and not on anything else that might have transpired in the game.

Ff1
 

Seeing it live, I wasn't convinced the foul itself warranted a FF1, but I think what convinced the crew was the taunting type actions after the foul.

So instead of going Common Foul, shooting 2 free throws, plus a technical for taunting (not necessarily administered in that order). They just upgraded the foul to a FF1. I didn't mind it at all.

Thanks for the clarification.

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.

So we are saying a team would have to get for a warning for: A) Huddling in the key, B)reaching through the plane and C)interfering with the ball after a made basket. Then if they committed the same type of act, A, B or C they would then be assessed a technical? Thus we would be issuing 3 separate warnings.

I only do HS, under NFHS, which I feel one warning would suffice for all 3 acts and a subsequent occurrence would result in a T Foul. Right?


FYI... the BYU player penalized was a member of the BYU football team last fall. Plays Defensive End and he should be a good one, maybe even play on Sunday. He is aggressive. I did him in HS basketball his So and Jr years, he didn't play BB his senior as he tore an ACL in Football, so this year is his first basketball in about 4 years as he did the Mormon mission thing for 2 years. He has a decision to make as BYU starts Spring Drills on Monday. Football or Basketball???

Your missing a 4th, "water on the court after a time-out".

And yes, they are all separate for NCAA.

So?

I don't think this warranted a FF1.

The DOG warning I can live with, but I'm not sure it really was.

FED: One warning for any of the acts, then any of the acts is a T. So, one warning maximum.

NCAA: One warning for each of the acts, then that same act again is a T. So, four (or 5) warnings are possible.

As I only do HS, and reading through the post I gathered that NFHS added the "Court Ready" DOG and the NCAA didn't. But if you say Court being Game Ready in NCAA, I should have added it as the 4th. They each get warnings?

If you aren't aware when bench players come into the game to muck it up and "rough-up" the other team's star players, your games will not go well.

Exactly. I always discuss problem children in my pre-games.

I think this is clearly and FF1 when the player runs his mouth afterwards. If he was just fouling the player and that was all, then he would have walked away. And this guy he knocked down is listed as 7'0" tall. And that player is not soft at all either.

Peace

I thought it was an obvious flagrant foul.

This game was very physical from the get-go, so the FF1 play did not surprise me one bit. I believe Kaufisi had 3 fouls in the first 15 minutes of the game, and it was plain to see his purpose for being on the floor.

With that said, I think Gonzaga withstood a pretty hostile environment and opponent, which will serve them well in the weeks ahead.

Definitely a defensive foul, but not a FF1.

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.

And I wouldn't cry if he got whacked for the little stare down, either.

Agreed

+1.

He swipes his arm across the shooter's upper arms almost as high as his shoulders. I realize the shooter is a moving target, but if he were actually making a play at the ball, I don't think he would have missed this bad.

Pretty thin D.O.G. - not sure it's worthy of stopping the game.

As for the FF1 - are you kidding?

The shooter does nothing except make a legitimate drive to the basket.

All contact is created by Kaufusi with an aggressive forward motion, with his arms piked, and no intention whatsoever on making a basketball play. To boot - there IS head contact because Kaufusi's piked arm is the first piece of his body that comes into contact with Olynyk's head. Observe:

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...ball/FF1-1.png

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...ball/FF1-2.png

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...ball/FF1-3.png

Olynyk is completely vertical at the moment of contact. Kaufusi shifted into him aggressively, traveling about three feet horizontally in the process. Then he basically makes a body-slam movement with both arms. This is not a basketball play.

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.

Bottom line - I can't believe an observer in the stands with a clipboard would criticize the official on the play for calling a "softie" flagrant 1 foul.

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.

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.

You might be confusing "contact to the thead" with the relativley new "moving elbow contact to the head" rule.

Shoot the normal guy who evaluates these games was not there Saturday or I would have some good stuff right from the evaluators mouth. Sorry guys.. I will see who subbed for him and see what he says.

Considering that Dave Libbey (the WCC Supervisor) was present at the game, and said it was a F1, it is the only evaluation of the play the crew needed to hear.