The CardBoard
That flagrant... - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: That flagrant... (/thread-6891.html)


That flagrant... - dabigv13 - 03-21-2014

What a load of bullshit. The NM player, because he was actively fouling Randle, had his head pretty much right next to Randle's. Yes Randle was swinging his elbows, but if you looked at the vertically oriented replays, Randle's arms weren't actually extended outwards to any appreciable degree.

If you intentionally put your face in another player's space you shouldn't be rewarded.

Re: That flagrant... - Viking_Guy - 03-21-2014

Reminded me of some calls against Jayne, Nneka and Chiney, where they were in the post and spreading their arms to make themselves big, and a smaller defender would stick their head into their upper arms and fall over, trying to draw an offensive foul.

They say it's to protect player safety, but at a certain point, who initiates the contact needs to be considered, or at least who is the one creating a dangerous situation.

VG


Re: That flagrant... - jacketree - 03-21-2014

Right call actually. Can't hit a dude in his face with your elbow, regardless of intent, situation, or anything else. With 7 seconds left, just cradle the ball and wait for the foul. No need to create space. I know it is instinctual, however.

Re: That flagrant... - Viking_Guy - 03-21-2014

Agree, JTree, but at some point, it gets a bit absurd - I remember one instance where Nneka was setting up in the post with her arms spread at shoulder height, and a defender, trying to fight around and front her, essentially clothes-lined herself on Nneka's upper arm.  But because Nneka was moving a bit, she was called for a flagrant-1.

VG


Re: That flagrant... - CompSci87 - 03-21-2014

...And I remember an instance in the first year of the rule where Jayne was surrounded by 3 players after getting a rebound, all slapping at her arms (no call on that). When she turned away from the two in front of her, she hit one behind her that she couldn't see with an elbow. It was called a flagrant-1 -- and she was (erroneously) ejected.

Re: That flagrant... - TreeWeird - 03-21-2014

So the rule is there to protect players.  Fine.  But I wouldn't be surprised if players (with implicit or explicit instructions from coaches) intentionally lean in to draw these "flagrant" shots to the head just as players draw any other foul.  Calling the flagrant no matter what the other player is doing may be the rule today, but seems to me it might invite further injury to players, not necessarily prevent it.

Re: That flagrant... - 81alum - 03-21-2014

Perhaps players ought to don boxing masks and defend by putting their heads in the way of as many elbows as they can find.

http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Professional-boxing-helmet-kangrui-head-protection-flanchard-wigs-face-mask-2053-1/1303059232.html

Re: That flagrant... - Viking_Guy - 03-23-2014

Just saw a brobdingnagian momentum shift on this call.  North Carolina down against UT Martin in the NCAA tournament.  They get a 1 and 1 chance, and the first rebound comes off.  A UT Martin player down low extends her arms to box out even with her own shoulders.  A Tar Heel player dives into the lane and clothes-lines herself on the extended arm.  No foul called, but on review, a flagrant 1 called against UT-M, 2 shots and the ball.  Then they get possession, and two more free throws.  Now North Carolina can't be called for a foul, and is going to the free throw line every time down court.

From down 15 to down 5 in the course of 3 minutes, enabled by that call.

VG


Re: That flagrant... - Viking_Guy - 03-23-2014

And the Tarheels come back to win, 60-58.  UT-Martin got discombobulated by the call.

The sequence was actually worse than I thought.  The ball had gone out of bounds to UT-Martin off the missed front end.  The flagrant 1 call gave two shots and the ball, which ended up resulting in 4 free throws for UNC, when UT-M should've had possession with under 9 minutes and a 15 point lead.

It was not the only strange call in the game.  With UT-Martin having the last possession, they brought the ball upcourt and called timeout, trailing by 2 with 18 seconds left.  At that point, the PA announcer came on and announced that the building was in lockdown because of reports of an armed man on the campus.  Then the referees insisted that UT-M's coach only had the time remaining after the announcement (which probably took up 30 seconds of his 60) to draw up a play.

I have to say, I really don't like the Tarheels as a women's program.  They've outstripped the legendary Kathy Olivier of UCLA infamy in their ability to do less with more talent than any team I know, and get a lot of benefit of the doubt on calls because of their frenetic style of play.

VG


Re: That flagrant... - M T - 03-23-2014

I have problems with the announcement at 18 seconds left.  I guess I can understand why it wasn't announced when it was first made 53 minutes earlier.  The lock-down should have been announced earlier (say, the under-4 media timeout).  In any case, it should be announced prior to the game's end.  But then the all-clear came in apparently during the timeout with 0:18 on the clock.  Given that it was an all-clear (and there was no previous announcement), I think it would have been wiser not to announce it until after the game was over.  But if they were still under a lock-down, I would announce it at 0:18 if it had not been announced earlier.

Given that, the officials should have done something such as going to the sideline NCAA representatives and ask what to do.  Do anything (such as that question) to provide more time.  They could have called an official's timeout to understand the situation themselves.




As for the clothesline, it was on a free throw rebound.  I regret that it appears to be correctly called a flagrant 1 foul.  I think everyone understands it is illegal to stick your arms out to block another player. 
Quote:Rule 10
Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress of an
opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by bending his
or her own body into other than a normal position or by using any unreasonably
rough tactics.
Art. 4. A player shall not extend the arm(s) fully or partially other than vertically
so that freedom of movement of an opponent is hindered when contact with the
arm(s) occurs.

So, this contact is illegal contact.  Rule 4. Section 29 (Foul) Art. 2 (Personal foul) c. says
Quote:Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul shall be a personal
foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but not based
solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to: ...
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an
opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a.

While I wouldn't call this contact excessive, the rule specifically includes it.  If similar contact had been with the forearm, back of the upper arm, or bicep, it should not be a flagrant 1 foul.

Note this is different than the flagrant 1 foul called in the Stanford men's game.  The question there is whether that one was illegal contact.


The worst call I saw today was the overrule of the initial call in the Penn State game, where Penn State took a three point shot and the rebound went out of bounds with 59.6 seconds left.  The replays on TV clearly showed that no opponent was within 1 foot of the ball when it was shot or after it came off the rim.  Maybe the officials didn't have the replay from the opposite end of the court where it was clear there was no contact of the rebound, as they overruled the call and gave it to the shooting team.


Re: That flagrant... - Viking_Guy - 03-23-2014

MT--

That may be the letter of the rule, but it looked like fairly normal boxing out to me; by that rule, anyone ever extending their arm out at all while rebounding can be called for a foul.  And there was no foul called in the run of play.  Which means the parts of rule 10 shouldn't apply, correct? They did not call an impeding foul or anything of that sort.

And that extension of the flagrant rule is exactly the issue, I think.  If a player has her arms out to catch a ball or to go up for a rebound, and without intentionally swinging or moving her arm is run into by a defender, it invites gamesmanship and flopping; just stick your head in there and buy the call.  The rule as written means that even if a player sticks her head down at waist height, any arm contact by the opposing player on her head can be called a flagrant.

In soccer, if a player sticks his head down into the contact zone, they can be called for dangerous play for endangering themselves; I've had it happen when someone tried to head a ball at waist height as I was trying to kick to clear it.

Not saying the call wasn't correct by the rules as written.  Just that the rule invites situations where leading with your head and putting yourself in danger may become a strategy.  I remember a game where Brittany Boyd snapped her head back as an opponent brought down a ball, and the referees immediately called a foul, going to the replay if it seemed it would be a flagrant-1 or 2.  Only to see on the replay that at no point had the defender's arm come within 2 inches of Boyd's head or face.  But they'd already whistled the foul, and couldn't rescind it.

At some point, might we see unsportsmanlike technicals for "simulation"?  And not saying it's just the opponents; today's early second half head snap by Randle may have bought the fifth team foul called on UK, despite the fact that any foul was with the body.  I had problems with Aaron Bright doing similar things last year.

VG

Edit:  Not sure of the other parts of the rule, but it also (6) also seems to invite some nit-picking - when is contact with the arm contact with the elbow, especially if the elbow isn't bent or moving?  Is forearm or upper arm contact not subject to the same rule?