The Official Forum - Gonzaga vs Georgia Possible FF1/FF2 (kick)? (Video)

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Gonzaga vs Georgia Possible FF1/FF2 (kick)? (Video) (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/98722-gonzaga-vs-georgia-possible-ff1-ff2-kick-video.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 944928)

It would be very insightful to know the conversation that was had by this crew, with 55 years experience combined, that led them to the conclusion that this was not upgrade worthy.

Agreed, I'd love to get their perspective, as for me, the only real discussion should be between F1 and F2.

In NFHS, I'd be leaning towards a flagrant here. It definitely meets the standard at least of excessive contact.

Intentional Or Flagrant ???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 944934)

In NFHS, I'd be leaning towards a flagrant here. It definitely meets the standard at least of excessive contact.

Be careful with your NFHS officiating language. Note the difference between 4-19-3 and 4-19-4:

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to ... Excessive contact with an opponent ...

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or
savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not
limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it
involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or
persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 944938)

That was his point. He'd probably lean flagrant, but it at least meets the definition of excessive to be called an intentional foul.

But thanks for the copy/paste.

Excessive Contact ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 944941)

That was his point. He'd probably lean flagrant, but it at least meets the definition of excessive to be called an intentional foul.

Got it. Would you believe that English was my first language? Sorry Welpe.

Just thought I'd add the regular-speed version and the other angles (if only to prove I'm actually posting clips...)

These would also be (some of) the angles the crew saw courtside.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BaujfWFPwgs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I go FF2 on this one. Apart from the rule book definition a few weeks ago I heard Mark Jackson give a description as to why a player in an NBA game deserved an F2: "If you do that in the playground, the game is over." If this happened in the playground, the game is over.

If that's not a FF1 (NCAA)/Intentional (FED) I don't know what is.

Saw the play live - which seemed like a common foul…and then was amazed that the crew (led by Ed Corbett) decided that it was NOT a FF1 or FF2.

Surely this play HAS to be deemed "excessive contact"...