Gonzaga vs Georgia Possible FF1/FF2 (kick)? (Video)
 

4:42 2nd period (this game was on ESPN2 last night)

Georgia's Kenny Gaines with what's best described as a flying kick to Gonzaga's Josh Perkins.

At speed, my initial reaction was borderline F1/F2; the officials reviewed and came back with a common foul. I'm curious what this community thinks!

Full disclosure - I'm a Gonzaga fan, but I've no axe to grind, and I'm definitely a referee first. I'd just enjoy the discussion :)

Someone else will post the video, but when I watched it I saw a leg kick from the lead's angle. I would have gone with an intentional foul in a high school game. I'm surprised they didn't upgrade.

Officially reported the kid has a broken jaw. Did the crew get caught up with the fact that the contact did not involve an elbow, thus passing on upgrading?

Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow which is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

<iframe class="vine-embed" src="https://vine.co/v/O1LwlZBzda3/embed/simple" width="600" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe><script async src="//platform.vine.co/static/scripts/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

player may have been trying to lift leg so he could get over top of guy. may not have meant the kick. he made solid contact with the leg in the head. that is excessive to me. f1

I think he got caught in a bad spot and tried to avoid the contact mid-air. I see absolutely no intent to injure here at all. Not a single thread of that in this play.

Peace

That is pretty much the definition of excessive contact.

While it may not be an elbow, such contact with an elbow would be an FF1 at a minimum. The knee, while not explicitly called on in the flagrant foul interpretations, should probably be treated the same way when it makes contact above the shoulders.

F1 for eccessive contact.

No so much anymore. Officials can decide to have a FF or just a common foul depending on the type of contact. And they can review the video to determine to go up in penalty or lower in penalty.

Peace

I agree with the F1. This, imo, is a poster-child for why they took the wording "intentional" out of the foul. He didn't *mean* to do it, but he did it.

The contact was both excessive and violent. He clearly kicked out at the player. Flagrant 2 and the ejection are warranted.

100% agree. I was watching this when it happened and thought the same. After watching it about 25 times from different angles and in slo-mo I still think the same. We can't decide intent here. What we can see is that his leg kicks out in a violent manner then nails the guy in the head. This is textbook excessive to me.

Add my vote to the Flagrant 1 side.

Looks violent and savage to me. He's gotta go.

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.