Kansas-Michigan Flagrant Foul Clip

[JetMetFan]

[Adam]

You wouldn't have called the flagrant for hitting him in the groin?

If I saw that in a hs game, it would be a Fed flagrant.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I had the luxury of watching the game in my living room on a 46in flat screen (and why we have such a big screen is a thread in and of itself, and I have intelligent and wonderful wife to thank for it), so the picture was really big, . And believe me watching Kansas on the big screen made the loss even worse, LOL.

I watched the play in real time and I though the C got it correct. Just two ships going bump in the night, I mean players bumping into each other. I really thought that when McGary went down I thought that they had bumped knees.

I believe, that when it takes almost five minutes of watching super slow motion close ups to determine if an infraction of the rules occurred, then this old adage should have been adhered followed: "If you cannot explain it, then do not call it."

That said, I do know what a punch to the reserve parking space (what Mark, Jr., and Andy use to call it when they were little) looks like. I had a pool play game in an AAU Boys' 13U NIT in Cocoa Beach, Florida in the late 1990's where A1 attempted what started out as an unguarded 3-point FG (by jump shot) (I was the covering official) when B1 came out to challenge him and instead of raising his right hand up to challenge the shot, he gave A1 a powerful right handed upper cut that landed in A1's reserved parking space. A1's FGA was successful, B1 was charged with a FPF, and A1 recovered to take and make his two free throws.

I just didn't see it in the Kansas-Michigan game.

MTD, Sr.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I believe, that when it takes almost five minutes of watching super slow motion close ups to determine if an infraction of the rules occurred, then this old adage should have been adhered followed: "If you cannot explain it, then do not call it."

I'll agree with you there. I know we all want to be 100% certain about these things especially given the stakes but...he popped the guy in the spot most vulnerable. As a casual observer it makes you think they discussed it so long to come up with ways not to call a FF2.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I'll agree with you there. I know we all want to be 100% certain about these things especially given the stakes but...he popped the guy in the spot most vulnerable. As a casual observer it makes you think they discussed it so long to come up with ways not to call a FF2.

I didn't watch it, but I agree, if they took that long, they were likely debating between FF1 and FF2. I doubt they were debating whether or not to make a call.

[Sharpshooternes]

So I don't think it was clear in the thread, what was the actual ruling? Second, I don't think I see a problem with the screen that was set. What was illegal about it?

[junruh07]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So I don't think it was clear in the thread, what was the actual ruling? Second, I don't think I see a problem with the screen that was set. What was illegal about it?

The screen was legal, but the guy who got screened popped the screener in the gonads. The ruling was a FF1. As others have said, I think the prolonged debate was between FF1 and FF2.

[biz]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I'll agree with you there. I know we all want to be 100% certain about these things especially given the stakes but...he popped the guy in the spot most vulnerable. As a casual observer it makes you think they discussed it so long to come up with ways not to call a FF2.

I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, I think it's incredible given the video evidence (fist closed, clear upper-cut punching motion that is directed at an opponent) that this was NOT a FF2. Think about this for a second; if the Kansas player did the same thing (fist clenched and punching motion) and contacted the opponent on the head/face would there be any question as to FF1 or FF2? I think not. So then why should this be any different?

NCAA 4-29-2d states that a FF2 "involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme..." I can't think of too many things that are more "excessive...severe or extreme" than a punch to the junk!

I think the officials on this game did exactly as JetMetFan suggests; they looked for a reason not to kick Johnson out of the game and I think that they hurt the game by not applying the rules correctly.

Just my $.02

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I believe, that when it takes almost five minutes of watching super slow motion close ups to determine if an infraction of the rules occurred, then this old adage should have been adhered followed: "If you cannot explain it, then do not call it."

I understand that sentiment. I saw the play in real time, and as McGary went down, surmised what had happened by where McGary was putting his arms. CBS immediately went to a replay, and I saw the punch/hit. I don't have anyone to back this up cuz I was watching alone, but I said out loud "flagrant 1!". I knew the call about 10 seconds after it happened.

I'm not claiming I'm better or quicker than the actual officials, but in this case I thought it didn't take very long to deduce the correct penalty.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Adam

You wouldn't have called the flagrant for hitting him in the groin?

If I saw that in a hs game, it would be a Fed flagrant.

Yup; absolutely a Fed flagrant!