Duke vs North Carolina (2015) (Videos x2)
 

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?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sdJjM91Z3PE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Review at 18:31

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6WL5EyQfCx0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

#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.

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

And just a PC on the first one.

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.

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.

"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.

On the second one, if he had grabbed the waste in the same situation, it would be a supportable IF (FF1). I don't know the NCAA wording, but NFHS 4-19-3A, "Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage." He's not making a play, he's holding an opponent so the opponent can't make a play.

Seems to me the perfect example of an IF based on that rule.

As officials, we always try to avoid picking up the dirty end of the stick. :0

And, on the play, if he had reached out an arm to impede the player, we'd have nothing other than a common foul.

Great point. I guess if the "kick" was done as a fighting or aggressive act, then a FF1/IF is warranted. Otherwise a PC is good, as is the case on this play.

First play: I prefer FF1.

Second play: I'd prefer a common foul here, but I think FF1 is completely justifiable. Since common foul wasn't an option at the monitor, I have no issues with them going FF1.

What do the rules say? If you deem anything to be "fighting" it's an automatic flagrant (NFHS) or Flagrant 2 (NCAA). What we need to consider for an INT/F1 foul is whether or not the contact was excessive. By my view of this kick, it was absolutely excessive.

I don't see this as a kick any more than using the forearm to push off as a punch. It was not a strike, it was simply used to push the player away in pretty much the same manner as any other push off. If, instead, he had jabbed or swung the foot (like swinging elbows), F1, sure, maybe even F2.

I think there's a difference. Other than your own propulsion, there is nothing you can do with your foot on the basketball court that's legal. As much emphasis as we have placed on the hand check, a lot of it still goes on. You put your foot where it doesn't belong, even by accident, if there's contact, that's a foul. With that in mind, I see any deliberate contact with the foot/leg as excessive. I think both of these were deliberate.