Iowa State-West Virginia

[VTOfficial]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What did they end up ruling?

Clearly a Flagrant 2 on the shot attempt.

I can see why a foul was not called on the rebound before, but a foul would have been very appropriate here.

Peace

The ruling was a FF1 for the kick and an FF2 for the hit to the head.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by VTOfficial

The ruling was a FF1 for the kick and an FF2 for the hit to the head.

Interesting.

I'm speaking HS here but I'd have a flagrant on both plays. That kick was intentional and completely unnecessary.

[jTheUmp]

On the Kick:
T looks to be straightlined.
C should have had a look at it, but he doesn't have the best angle either.
L could've had a crew-saver if he had called it, but I don't think he was looking in that direction.

[APG]

The rebound and kick reminds me of this play:

[jeschmit]

I gotta say it... What about the missed travel on R22?



I got FF2 on both of them. Kick was unnecessary and extreme, and the swing was obviously warranting an ejection.

[ballgame99]

I don't see any bad intentions in the OP kick. His foot got higher than it should have, his momentum carried him into the defender and made contact and got caught in the jersey and should have been called a foul, but he doesn't seem to really 'kick' the guy and the contact is low. I don't see a FF1 or intentional. The punch on the shooter is an easy FF2. You are winning by 30, why on Earth are you punching a shooter?

[APG]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I don't see any bad intentions in the OP kick. His foot got higher than it should have, his momentum carried him into the defender and made contact and got caught in the jersey and should have been called a foul, but he doesn't seem to really 'kick' the guy and the contact is low. I don't see a FF1 or intentional. The punch on the shooter is an easy FF2. You are winning by 30, why on Earth are you punching a shooter?

Because his teammate just got kicked in the chest and nothing was done about it.

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I don't see any bad intentions in the OP kick. His foot got higher than it should have, his momentum carried him into the defender and made contact and got caught in the jersey and should have been called a foul, but he doesn't seem to really 'kick' the guy and the contact is low. I don't see a FF1 or intentional. The punch on the shooter is an easy FF2. You are winning by 30, why on Earth are you punching a shooter?

Since when do intentions come into play? Rarely does a player "intend" to commit a foul...it happens, but most are just normally occuring during the course of play.

Since I cannot possibly know the intentions of a player I can only make a decision based on what I see...and I see a flagrant foul on the rebounding kick. I also don't consider contacting a player above the waist with the sole of your foot to be "low contact".

I also do not care about the momentum of a player. Suppose A1 is running down the floor full speed toward B1 who clearly has LGP standing (NOT MOVING) half way between the FT line and the basket. A1 leaps into the air and releases a finger roll attempt then plows into B1. Are you going to ignore the contact? Clearly the momentum of A1 carried him through the air and into the stationary B1.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Interesting.

I'm speaking HS here but I'd have a flagrant on both plays. That kick was intentional and completely unnecessary.

Agreed.