Are our flagrant foul calls makeup calls?

[niveklaen]

During the Temple game we twice elbowed one of their guards hard in the face - both looked to be inadvertant contact but definitely elbows above the neck and neither was called a flagrant (I think both were called as normal fouls but one might not have been called at all...). The TV guys ran replays of both plays highlighting the contact. Both those plays were much more deserving of a flagrant foul than either of the ones that were actually called here recently.

I wonder if the refs took notice of that and have made a point to enforce the flagrant foul rule against us in our recent games because it was so blatantly missed twice in the temple game.

[feldspar]

Um...no.

[Ichabod Drain]

Um...no.

^^What he said.

[moonpie23]

black helicopters in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1..

[fitimi1]

What is going on? Can someone explain it? I do not understand the rule. I listened to the announcers describe the rule, but did not get the connection between the rule and what they said happened. I was even more perplexed and confused in the FSU game where it has been reported that the FSU player told the referees that no contact was made and told them prior to the referees going to look at the monitors.

It would help me, and I suspect others, if someone could give an "official explanation."

Thanks

[gwlaw99]

What is going on? Can someone explain it? I do not understand the rule. I listened to the announcers describe the rule, but did not get the connection between the rule and what they said happened. I was even more perplexed and confused in the FSU game where it has been reported that the FSU player told the referees that no contact was made and told them prior to the referees going to look at the monitors.

It would help me, and I suspect others, if someone could give an "official explanation."

Thanks

I think the rule is any contact from a moving elbow above the shoulders is an automatic intentional foul. Once a foul is called, I don't think it can be un-called even if the officials see no contact on the replay.

[Bluedog]

What is going on? Can someone explain it? I do not understand the rule. I listened to the announcers describe the rule, but did not get the connection between the rule and what they said happened. I was even more perplexed and confused in the FSU game where it has been reported that the FSU player told the referees that no contact was made and told them prior to the referees going to look at the monitors.

It would help me, and I suspect others, if someone could give an "official explanation."

Thanks

I assume by the FSU game, you meant Clemson. Here's a description from the NCAA rule book (ignore the part where the coach asks officials to review it though):


A.R. 39. An official reports a flagrant 1 personal foul on A1 because of illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of B1. The coach from Team B asks the officials to review the foul using the monitor to determine if the foul was a flagrant 2 personal foul. The official reviews the monitor to see if a flagrant 2 personal foul occurred on the play and upon review sees that the illegal contact was actually made below the shoulders. Is the official permitted to change the reported flagrant 1 personal foul to a common foul? Is Team B charged with a timeout because a flagrant 2 personal foul did not occur?

RULING: While the officials are permitted to review the monitor to see if a flagrant 2 personal foul or (women) a flagrant 1 personal foul for illegal
elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent occurred, Rule 2-13.2.d.1 states that when it is determined that a flagrant 2 personal
foul did not occur but a flagrant 1 personal or a contact dead ball technical foul did occur, those fouls can be penalized, but no other infractions
may be penalized. When the official reports a flagrant 1 personal foul, that foul can be reviewed until the ball becomes live, but when
it is discovered that neither a flagrant 1 nor flagrant 2 foul occurred, the reported foul cannot be downgraded to a common foul. Since the
coach requested a review for a possible flagrant 2 personal foul and no such foul occurred, Team B is charged a timeout. (Ruling: 2-13.2.d.1)

https://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/Groups/104883/Library/files/2012%20Basketball%20Case%20Book.pdf

Since they called the foul as an elbow above the shoulder, it's an automatic flagrant 1 according to the rulebook, as best I understand it. They cannot downgrade it to a common foul (or no foul) even if evidence suggests that from the monitor.

[DoubleDuke Dad]

I assume by the FSU game, you meant Clemson. Here's a description from the NCAA rule book (ignore the part where the coach asks officials to review it though):



https://ncaambb.arbitersports.com/Groups/104883/Library/files/2012%20Basketball%20Case%20Book.pdf

Since they called the foul as an elbow above the shoulder, it's an automatic flagrant 1 according to the rulebook, as best I understand it. They cannot downgrade it to a common foul (or no foul) even if evidence suggests that from the monitor.

Thank God that the NCAA is not running our Justice system. :rolleyes:

[superdave]

The NCAA, I think starting last year, put special emphasis on contact with someone's head. That's why you saw Josh and Miles get flagrant 1's the past two games. The rule as I have heard it explained by announcers leaves very little room for interpretation or for consideration of intent - ie malicious vs accidental. This appears to be the NCAA wanting to cut down on concussions, which I dont think are an outsized problem in basketball.

The worst part about it is the over-zealousness of the refs to spend 5 minutes at the tv monitor playing and re-playing the video of the alleged incident. If you cannot determine quickly what happened, you are probably over-thinking it.

Super "If you see a guy flop in order to draw a flagrant 1 and you do not penalize him for that flop, then you are probably a bad ref!" Dave

[camion]

So, under the current rule, would it be possible for Muggsy Bogues to be called for a flagrant foul?

Just wondering? :confused:

[Turtleboy]

So, under the current rule, would it be possible for Muggsy Bogues to be called for a flagrant foul?

Just wondering? :confused:I think his eligibility is used up.

[DukieInKansas]

So, under the current rule, would it be possible for Muggsy Bogues to be called for a flagrant foul?

Just wondering? :confused:


I think his eligibility is used up.

But don't worry, if he somehow managed to pull it off, he wouldn't get the foul. Daniel Ewing would get a T.

[uh_no]

Um...no.

you called?

[DukieInKansas]

you called?

I think he was calling your cousin Um, not you.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

So, under the current rule, would it be possible for Muggsy Bogues to be called for a flagrant foul?

Just wondering? :confused:


I think his eligibility is used up.
Only if he was playing against Spud Webb! And vice-versa! :cool: Good question, camion!