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.

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 ???
 

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.

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 ...
 

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"...