I'd like to get @IUfanBorden 's take on this. I thought this would be a no brainer. They went to the monitor and everything.
How is this not a Flagrant 1?
How is this not a Flagrant 1?
Flagrant foul or not
- Thread starter kyjeff1
- Start date
By rule should have been a flagrant-1.
That said to me it shouldn't be a flagrant-1. The player was coming down and in now way was it intentional. He was just trying to ward off Washington and did it illegally.
That said to me it shouldn't be a flagrant-1. The player was coming down and in now way was it intentional. He was just trying to ward off Washington and did it illegally.
Not a flagrant because it wasn't intentional and the contact was below the head. If the elbow got him an inch higher then it's a flagrant IMO.
I see this coming down to what side of the fence you are on. In a way, he looks like he was extending his elbow deliberately. But that is hard to prove. Him being pushed from behind while in the air probably played a role in the optics of it.
As I understand it, it doesn't have to be intentional and honestly, how do you know it wasn't intentional?
Those players were doing a lot of trash talking most of the game (most likely started by PJ Washington). I guess I don't see a need for a forearm shiver there.
I just thought that was an automatic/no brainer Flagrant 1. I've seen it called for much less.
Those players were doing a lot of trash talking most of the game (most likely started by PJ Washington). I guess I don't see a need for a forearm shiver there.
I just thought that was an automatic/no brainer Flagrant 1. I've seen it called for much less.
The contact was at the neck area. Above the shoulders and that contact does not have to be intentional anymore. Technically by rule it was a flagrant-1. I have an issue with the rule because flagrant-1 to me means intentional.
My viewing of it, it looks like a natural extension of his elbow, not a deliberate here let me stick this in your face type of elbow. And since he didn't strike him in the face it doesn't rise to flagrant for me. And as LetsGoDuke posted, getting pushed in the back could've caused him to stick the elbow out as a defensive move to protect himself since he was put off balance by the push to the back.
I wish Grayson Allen was the person we were debating in this situation. Every person on this board would be calling for him to be suspended. Perhaps indefinitely.
I’m all seriousness it’s a common foul. We’re getting way to soft these days in hoops. Hard foul. Whistle him and let’s keep playing. We don’t need a 17 minute review over every common foul.
I’m all seriousness it’s a common foul. We’re getting way to soft these days in hoops. Hard foul. Whistle him and let’s keep playing. We don’t need a 17 minute review over every common foul.
Exactly how I saw it.
You can’t make contact to the head or neck area in any sport anymore. I don’t like it, but it is what it is.
maybe it doesn't have to be intentional, but it still has to be reckless and excessive. I don't think this qualified as either intentional or reckless and excessive. If he hit him higher up then I would agree it was flagrant since head contact trumps all.
Richards put his hand on the dude's back but it certainly wasn't a push. He didn't even extend his arm, it remained in the same position as it was when he put it on his back. It certainly wouldn't have influenced the way his body moved in the air. The momentum of the rebound already had him moving in that direction and that remained fluid, even when Richards had his hand on his back. That said, I would've done the same thing the SH player did since Washington encroached on his landing zone while he was in the air.
I bet I've got that card somewhere in my old bedroom at my parents' house. I collected bball cards back then. If not, I'm sure my dad has several copies. He has one of the largest private card collections in the US.
True story: About 20 years ago he answered an ad in the paper and bought the entire inventory of a baseball card store from a widow. Took him 3 trips in a UHaul van to bring everything home. 20 years later and he is still working his way through all the inventory.
True story: About 20 years ago he answered an ad in the paper and bought the entire inventory of a baseball card store from a widow. Took him 3 trips in a UHaul van to bring everything home. 20 years later and he is still working his way through all the inventory.
She's cool with it. They have a really big house (minus 3 children) so lots of room to store everything. His den and the basement are wall to wall cards. The garage is loaded with supplies like card holders and stuff like that.
To this day, every night he will grab a stack of inventory and sort through it while he's watching a ballgame.
I saw this on ESPN yesterday. I guess that photo was taken AFTER they murdered their parents. Wow.
- 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. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock
from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed
excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
personal foul (pg. 47)
And this...
The committee tweaked the rules regarding elbow contact above the shoulders.
A minimum of a flagrant 1 foul is no longer required when an official is responding to illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent. Now, officials also can call a common foul on any illegal elbow contact, which may result in no free throws and simply a throw-in to the offended team.
This rule change is a stark contrast to the former minimum flagrant 1 foul rule that has been in effect for three years, which awarded the offended player two free throws and the ball. Coaches felt that, sometimes, elbow contact did not merit such a harsh penalty. However, officials who deem elbow contact to be excessive, unnecessary, severe or extreme are encouraged to call a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 foul.
The committee tweaked the rules regarding elbow contact above the shoulders.
A minimum of a flagrant 1 foul is no longer required when an official is responding to illegal elbow contact above the shoulders of an opponent. Now, officials also can call a common foul on any illegal elbow contact, which may result in no free throws and simply a throw-in to the offended team.
This rule change is a stark contrast to the former minimum flagrant 1 foul rule that has been in effect for three years, which awarded the offended player two free throws and the ball. Coaches felt that, sometimes, elbow contact did not merit such a harsh penalty. However, officials who deem elbow contact to be excessive, unnecessary, severe or extreme are encouraged to call a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 foul.
I guess it looked worse in real time and on that clip than it actually was. I thought for sure it was going to be an F1 when it happened.
If Washington does that to a player it will be an F1. Because it was UK player harmed it is not an F1. What bothers me is that Washington can be hurt and the officials don't give a shit.
But that play did not cause UK to lose the game.
At the moment this UK team is not good. They need to grow up and play as a team. They have fallen from number 2 to 19. I think that they will soon be out of the top 25.
So then, after they are out of the polls, some of the Kentucky fans on this board will be left alone while the Cats claw to get back.
In the meantime we can judge how great Duke, KU, Michigan, Indiana, Louisville, Seton Hall, Tennessee and Auburn can be. We can see how dirty plays are called or not called.
But that play did not cause UK to lose the game.
At the moment this UK team is not good. They need to grow up and play as a team. They have fallen from number 2 to 19. I think that they will soon be out of the top 25.
So then, after they are out of the polls, some of the Kentucky fans on this board will be left alone while the Cats claw to get back.
In the meantime we can judge how great Duke, KU, Michigan, Indiana, Louisville, Seton Hall, Tennessee and Auburn can be. We can see how dirty plays are called or not called.
Not a lot of time right know; I have a game. But keep this mind while I am gone:
No one has mentioned someting quite simple---You have to allow the rebounder room to come down.
More later at 11....
Also, Was his extending of the elbow consider a basketball move? A natural reaction to a basketball play. All things officials take into consdieration.
Again, more at 11....
No one has mentioned someting quite simple---You have to allow the rebounder room to come down.
More later at 11....
Also, Was his extending of the elbow consider a basketball move? A natural reaction to a basketball play. All things officials take into consdieration.
Again, more at 11....
The SH player was airborn and was basically floating towards Washington and did extend his forearm as he was coming down, but it could have been a natural movement.Not a lot of time right know; I have a game. But keep this mind while I am gone:
No one has mentioned someting quite simple---You have to allow the rebounder room to come down.
More later at 11....
Also, Was his extending of the elbow consider a basketball move? A natural reaction to a basketball play. All things officials take into consdieration.
Again, more at 11....
I've just seen far less called an F1.
Borden will be back at 11 and tell us it was a basketball play and not an F1.
UK is evil. Washington plays for UK so he is evil. Extract that to: The Seton Hall player is playing for Christ and must be totally innocent.
Just watch.
LOL.
I think it very well could be a legit basketball play, but it looked like it was a bit more than that to me though.
But my opinion may or may not be a bit biased.
Pretty much this. It allows officials some, "wiggle room". Years prior, this is an F1. There was no lead way. Now there is.
I'm taking the over. And we will eventually get into:
1. Higgins
2. Foul disparity of WVU/KU
Plus much, much more.
Or, maybe you see it differently because its a UK player? What if this were a play involving UL, IU or Duke? Would you feel the same? I doubt it. I truly am amazed how convinced some of you are that the NCAA, officials, etc, etc..are against UK. I mean....some of you actually, honestly, wholeheartedly believe this.
Scary.
It's not just UK fans, every fanbase has fans like this. I just dont get how people that truly believe that can enjoy games or even watch them for that matter.
Are you singling out UK fans? Others do the same here daily.
Not calling out UK fans, but saying the exact same shit UK fans say w/o repercussions.
Dude...There is NO fan base as paranoid as BBN. Zero.Nadda. None. Also, and correct me if I am wrong, I have yet to see a UNC, Duke, KU, IU, etc, etc... fan think the NCAA is out to get them. Or the officials. I have seen/heard this from BBN. Here. Rupps Rafters..Sea of Blue.
Kentucky fans are great. But man a lot of them are some paranoid , sons of bitches..
