Wisconsin vs Kentucky (Video 6/6)

[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.

[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?