Wisconsin vs Kentucky (Video 6/6)

[walt]

The F1 play is a tough one. You have an open hand and the hit is almost as if he is trying to push him out of the way. However, there is a swing and the contact appears pretty hard. They have a LOT of angles available to them on replay as they are in contact with the producer of the broadcast out in the truck either through the headset or through the liaison at the table. They can ask for any available angle. We do not know what angles they looked at and didn't look at. However, three multiple Final Four officials all decided after review it was not an F1. I am good with that.

As for the shot clock violation. I have been taught to always go by the horn. The shot clock has a different horn than the game clock. At every game they are supposed to have the shot clock turned on and wound down to expiration and to check the shot clock horn. When it is turned on the first number displayed is 34 for men and 29 for women. There is no tenths of a second. In pro arenas where the shot clocks can show tenths of a second, for whatever reason, that feature is to be shut off for the college game. However, the non displayed internal mechanism still counts down in tenths of a second. I saw the 0 but didn't hear the horn. I am good with the no call and counting the basket. Just the showing of 0 doesn't mean shot clock violation.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

consider three factors: windup, impact and follow through. If you have two of the three it's an F1/IF. All three is an F2/FF.

This is incredibly helpful information. I've struggled to put the rule text regarding F1/F2 into a practical perspective. This is the best explanation I've seen.

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

When judging an F1/IF or an F2/FF I've been told by people above me on the food chain to consider three factors: windup, impact and follow through. If you have two of the three it's an F1/IF. All three is an F2/FF. For me, this had the first two elements: It wasn't a huge windup - more like a boxer hitting someone with a jab - but it was definitely visible on video. The impact was significant in that it was on UW #21's neck.

Is this official guidance, or something that several vets use? On the attached F2 clip, I only see one of the three. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbAjk6c3GGg

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Is this official guidance, or something that several vets use? On the attached F2 clip, I only see one of the three. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbAjk6c3GGg

I see impact and follow through on this. For what it's worth I think I would have only gone F1 here.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Because it didn't meet the guidelines for an F1. Three D1 officials on the final four looked at it on replay and found that it wasn't an F1. Inadvertent contact to the face that isn't excessive is not an F1. Elbow contact could be, but not the underside of the wrist when he was just trying to get free from being held. It should have been a common foul, but it was not the kind of contact that makes it an F1.

Then the F1 guidelines need to be firmed up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Then the F1 guidelines need to be firmed up.

How so? How would you word it so that a player who accidentally swipes and pokes the eye of his opponent doesn't get hit with an F1? Or would you like to see that called an F1 as well?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Adam

How so? How would you word it so that a player who accidentally swipes and pokes the eye of his opponent doesn't get hit with an F1? Or would you like to see that called an F1 as well?

First, this was not incidental or accidental. It was reckless and he's lucky the Wisconsin player wasn't seriously hurt.

Second, yes I would like to see that an F1 as well. Players need to be responsible for contact they initiate, particularly when it's contact to the head and neck area. And a player doesn't accidentally swipe, he may accidentally hit the eye but the swipe itself is intentional.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Is this official guidance, or something that several vets use? On the attached F2 clip, I only see one of the three. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbAjk6c3GGg

This guideline came from the NBA...and has filtered it's way down to lower levels.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

First, this was not incidental or accidental. It was reckless and he's lucky the Wisconsin player wasn't seriously hurt.

Second, yes I would like to see that an F1 as well. Players need to be responsible for contact they initiate, particularly when it's contact to the head and neck area. And a player doesn't accidentally swipe, he may accidentally hit the eye but the swipe itself is intentional.

It's either accidental or intentional. Apparently, the guys watching video thought it was accidental, and then couldn't find another reason to warrant an F1. I agree it was accidental.

Reckless isn't a criteria for F1. Some use it for determining whether it is an F1 or an F2, but there's nothing in the rule that says "reckless" is an F1 if it doesn't meet the other criteria.

I thought it should have been an F1, but I don't think it's an egregious miss.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's either accidental or intentional. Apparently, the guys watching video thought it was accidental, and then couldn't find another reason to warrant an F1. I agree it was accidental.

Exactly. How many men have you ever seen try to hit someone like that?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Is this official guidance, or something that several vets use? On the attached F2 clip, I only see one of the three. Thoughts?

As APG points out it's not official guidance but, as I said, criteria given to me by those higher on the food chain as to what we should look for. IMO, the clip you posted was an F1 at the most. I can also see where it could have been called a common foul since it was a case of a not-so-big player encountering a bigger player. I can't see it as an F2 given the description of the rule (a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme while the ball is live).

Excessive, yeah. Severe/extreme, nah.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly. How many men have you ever seen try to hit someone like that?

Intent has nothing to do with the F1 rule, which is why NCAA changed the name from "intentional" to "flagrant 1" in the first place. The first line of the NCAA rule reads: "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." Even in NFHS it says an IF "may or may not be premeditated."