Miami at Louisville Player Throws Ball Off Opponent's Face (Video)

[bballref3966]

About 1:50 first half. Louisville player throws ball off Miami player's face. It was called a flagrant 1 I believe. Do personal fouls include contact caused by the ball?

[APG]

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

About 1:50 first half. Louisville player throws ball off Miami player's face. It was called a flagrant 1 I believe. Do personal fouls include contact caused by the ball?

That's a great question. I have no idea. I did a quick perusal of both NCAAM and NFHS rules and could not find anything about either contact with the ball nor technical infractions regarding thrown balls. Part of the reason the latter is not included is, I think, because sometimes a ball is thrown at a player intentionally and is perfectly legitimate, i.e. when falling out of bounds and trying to save possession. Makes me wonder if, had this been the situation here, we would have had anything at all?

That said, in this situation it sure doesn't look like the Louisville player was trying to save the ball. Not sure what he was thinking (he's probably not sure, either).

Class A unsporting tech seems like the right answer, but the non-ejection clauses in that class (1a-1d) do not really fit. So by default I think you are left with no choice but to consider the contact caused by the ball an extension of the concept of contact caused by the player. If F1 Personal was the call, I think they got it right, but it sure would be nice if the rules were more clear on this.

[Nevadaref]

This is either a technical foul or a legal play.
Either the official deems that the player made a smart move to strike the opponent with the ball while that opponent was out of bounds and this gain possession for his team with it being unfortunate that the ball contacted him in the face or the official deems this to be an unsporting act/attempt to injure an opponent and a technical foul (perhaps an ejection) is appropriate.

What is not appropriate is any type of personal foul as there was no contact between the persons involved. If the crew indeed charged a Flagrant 1 personal foul after consulting the monitor, each of them should be fined their game checks.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is either a technical foul or a legal play.
Either the official deems that the player made a smart move to strike the opponent with the ball while that opponent was out of bounds and this gain possession for his team with it being unfortunate that the ball contacted him in the face or the official deems this to be an unsporting act/attempt to injure an opponent and a technical foul (perhaps an ejection) is appropriate.

What is not appropriate is any type of personal foul as there was no contact between the persons involved. If the crew indeed charged a Flagrant 1 personal foul after consulting the monitor, each of them should be fined their game checks.

Great point, and after taking a closer look at 10-3-1, I agree with your assessment. Since the ball was live, I believe we're limited to calling this a Class A Tech for an unsporting act that's not necessarily enumerated in NCAAM 10-3-1, which begins with the following words:

A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but not limited to, the following:

Key words in italics.

[Raymond]

Why did the Lead let play continue? At a minimum Red was out of bounds when the ball hit him in the face. Center came with late whistle.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is either a technical foul or a legal play.
Either the official deems that the player made a smart move to strike the opponent with the ball while that opponent was out of bounds and this gain possession for his team with it being unfortunate that the ball contacted him in the face or the official deems this to be an unsporting act/attempt to injure an opponent and a technical foul (perhaps an ejection) is appropriate.

What is not appropriate is any type of personal foul as there was no contact between the persons involved. If the crew indeed charged a Flagrant 1 personal foul after consulting the monitor, each of them should be fined their game checks.

Sometimes people are presented with a play they've never seen before or never have had in their careers.

Fine a game check over ruling a F1 instead of a Class A technical? Overboard, even if it is an incorrect application of the rules.

[bballref3966]

According to the broadcast (I just watched the replay), they ruled a "flagrant technical foul," which makes no sense. There is no such thing as a "flagrant 1 technical" in NCAA, and if it had been a flagrant 2 technical, Harrell would've been ejected. My guess would be that they ruled it a Class A technical foul and just misspoke.

[APG]

They ruled it a flagrant 1 personal foul and made the player who was hit in the face shoot the free throws. They then resumed from the POI.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

They ruled it a flagrant 1 personal foul and made the player who was hit in the face shoot the free throws. They then resumed from the POI.

What was POI? OOB on orange?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by APG

They ruled it a flagrant 1 personal foul and made the player who was hit in the face shoot the free throws. They then resumed from the POI.

Refereeing's hard but ...If you rule a Flagrant 1 (intentional nfhs) (which I disagree with here for reasons stated by others)offended player shoots two and you would give the ball back to red near the spot of foul. Not POI. --
Class A tech--any red player shoots two and ball goes back to POI which here would be a white throw in on end line near spot. White had team control. Other choice is F2 non contact tech. eject player, shoot two and ball on either side of division line for red. I would have gone the class A route.

Refereeings hard...you get something weird...everyone's waiting...on you. It happens...to the best

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Adam

What was POI? OOB on orange?

They gave the ball to orange at the spot nearest the foul–under the Louisville basket.

Mike Eades told the broadcast team (which included Doris Burke) that they ruled it a technical foul, and the box score play-by-play also says that it was a technical. Problem is, there's no such thing as just a "flagrant technical foul" in NCAA, and if it actually had been ruled a technical foul, I highly doubt the big guy would've been shooting the free throws. I'm guessing this crew will have some explaining to do to their supervisor.

[APG]

Well they technically didn't get this correct either. They gave the ball to Miami after the fact...at the point where the ball went OOB. Strictly speaking, it should have been Louisville's ball after the administration of the foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

Well they technically didn't get this correct either. They gave the ball to Miami after the fact...at the point where the ball went OOB. Strictly speaking, it should have been Louisville's ball after the administration of the foul.

So they did it as if it were a F1?

[Raymond]

I have T'd a player for purposely throwing the ball off an opponent's head.