Duke vs North Carolina (2015) (Videos x2)

[APG]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

PC foul call by Bryan Kersey on Duke for an extended leg, about 1:05 first half on ESPN. Any possibility of a flagrant there?

Review at 18:31

[Camron Rust]

#1. I don't have a flagrant there....I think the PC is enough.

#2. Sneaky foul with the leg...holding the UNC player from being able to get to the lose ball. It could have been a common foul but I don't see it as rising the the level of a flagrant.

Play 1: Flagrant 1

Play 2: Common foul, but once you go to the monitor you either have to call a flagrant 1 or go with nothing.

[JugglingReferee]

I like Camron's description. It was a sneaky (common) foul all right!

And just a PC on the first one.

[Bad Zebra]

With the benefit of video review...Flagrant 1 in both instances wouldn't have been a surprise.

Interesting in #1...C had nothing. L was fortunate to have an unobstructed view and sold it well.

[BryanV21]

I'm going to start with the 2nd, in which I had nothing upon first view. It just looked like legs got tangled. However, on later views I do see the hold with the legs, which could be a foul.

Now, in the first, I think we have a clear FF1. Since when is intentionally kicking another player simply a PC foul? I mean, it was obvious to me that the shooter meant to do it, as extending his leg had nothing to do with a normal shooting movement. Heck, doing so made him off balance upon landing, whereas if he shot normally his landing wouldn't have been a problem.

I'm not a college official, so this may be my ignorance on their rules. But in high school, I have an intentional foul.

[bob jenkins]

"Extending the leg" is mentioned in the rules as one of the ways in which the RA does not apply. And, there's no mention in that part of the rule about it being an automatic FF1 (at least in NCAAW, and from what I recall in MCAAM). So, even when the RA is not a consideration, I don't think we should have this move as being an automatic FF1.