Seth Davis says that was the right call. I thought the rule was intent was a Flagrant 2, but there didn't need to be intent for a Flagrant 1. Heck, I think I remember Lazar getting a flagrant for swinging his elbows and not even making contact.
So what is the rule? Does anyone know? I couldn't hear the commentators well, but it sounded like they were debating 1 vs. 2 and surprised it wasn't called anything.
Edit to add: In no way am I blaming the game on this call or anything. I just don't know what the rule is. Also, to call it a basketball move is iffy. Jamil is much taller than this kid and was behind him. If Jamil was in a defensive stance and in front of him or on the side, I could buy it. Someone on twitter said that Boynton did a similar thing in the Norfolk State game, and this was kind of his MO.
I'm very curious about this as well. I thought that was a guaranteed 2 shots and the ball. Contact was definitely made. Not saying it would've changed the outcome but definitely a big call.
Quote from: mu89 on March 23, 2012, 01:01:28 AM
I'm very curious about this as well. I thought that was a guaranteed 2 shots and the ball. Contact was definitely made. Not saying it would've changed the outcome but definitely a big call.
Especially after that little slap (by DJO?) a couple minutes earlier. Seemed like he just had his hand up guarding and the guy turned around and ran into him & they called the foul. Then on this play the guy swings his arm HARD and up and no call at all?
Could have been a huge opportunity for MU to turn the game around. Probably wouldn't disagree with the no-call so much if not for the DJO call which seemed similar in non-intent.
In my opinion the ref's did not make the call because they knew of the possible implications it could have on the game. Essentially they didn't want to play a part in letting MU back in the game. That being said I have mixed emotions on what the call should have been and if Wilson was hit to begin with.
I think this should have been called flagrant 1 and the DJO call with the slap to the head should have been a no call. How many times does that happen in a game and not get called?
I would never go out here saying the refs are the reason we lost, because we played horribly on both ends (minus Todd Mayo), but it just seemed suspicious to me that we weren't getting ANY calls in our favor.
The DJO traveling call in the second half was interesting because I thought he got shoved. Also, anytime they had camera angles under the basket it looked like our guys were just getting hacked on the boards, yet they called a very questionable over the back on Junior for his third foul.
Quote from: damuts222 on March 23, 2012, 08:05:03 AM
In my opinion the ref's did not make the call because they knew of the possible implications it could have on the game. Essentially they didn't want to play a part in letting MU back in the game. That being said I have mixed emotions on what the call should have been and if Wilson was hit to begin with.
Disagree. That would not have stopped them from making the call. The call should have been made. He looked back when he swung. Wilson is 4 or 5" taller than he is. I thought it could have been a Flagrant 2. I see no justification for it not being a Flagrant 1 at a minimum.
Quote from: damuts222 on March 23, 2012, 08:05:03 AM
In my opinion the ref's did not make the call because they knew of the possible implications it could have on the game. Essentially they didn't want to play a part in letting MU back in the game. That being said I have mixed emotions on what the call should have been and if Wilson was hit to begin with.
There is no question that he was hit.
Quote from: copious1218 on March 23, 2012, 08:12:57 AM
There is no question that he was hit.
Exactly.
If you didn't think he got hit, then you also probably think Greg Jennings didn't fumble that ball against the Giants.
The officials flat-out got the call wrong. No conspiracy against MU. No attempt to avoid controversy. They just missed it, which is absolutely inconceivable given that they looked at the replay and the rule is very black-and-white.
Sometimes it's just not your night.
Quote from: MUMac on March 23, 2012, 08:12:33 AM
Disagree. That would not have stopped them from making the call. The call should have been made. He looked back when he swung. Wilson is 4 or 5" taller than he is. I thought it could have been a Flagrant 2. I see no justification for it not being a Flagrant 1 at a minimum.
Like. The rule clearly states a Flag 1 is for any nonexcessive contact above the shoulder. This was not incidental as the offender turned his body to give power as he raised his elbow to create contact. The rule is very precise and leaves nothing to judgment. I have no clue what Davis is thinking in his comments. Teddy Valentine is known in the B1G for bringing his own rulebook. I have seen Painter and Izzo go nuts on him at games I attended for his judgments this year on headscratchers.
In a week where the NFL made a strong statement, on injuries this was a hard one to understand. If Teddy grades out for another NCAA game, it will be mindboggling. Why waste our time with a video review?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 23, 2012, 08:26:04 AM
Like. The rule clearly states a Flag 1 is for any nonexcessive contact above the shoulder. This was not incidental as the offender turned his body to give power as he raised his elbow to create contact. The rule is very precise and leaves nothing to judgment. I have no clue what Davis is thinking in his comments. Teddy Valentine is known in the B1G for bringing his own rulebook. I have seen Painter and Izzo go nuts on him at games I attended for his judgments this year on headscratchers.
In a week where the NFL made a strong statement, on injuries this was a hard one to understand. If Teddy grades out for another NCAA game, it will be mindboggling. Why waste our time with a video review?
I cringed when I saw Valentine was officiating. He is one of the truly awful officials. I would prefer Burr, Higgins and Breeden to this buffoon any day.
Quote from: MUMac on March 23, 2012, 08:49:23 AM
I cringed when I saw Valentine was officiating. He is one of the truly awful officials. I would prefer Burr, Higgins and Breeden to this buffoon any day.
Instead of Teddy V., I'd prefer to see players call their own fouls like on the playground.
I'll summarize the thread and agree:
It should have been called a Flagrant 1. But it's not an excuse for MU's loss.
Quote from: Benny B on March 23, 2012, 09:04:10 AM
I'll summarize the thread and agree:
It should have been called a Flagrant 1. But it's not an excuse for MU's loss.
+1
Quote from: Benny B on March 23, 2012, 09:04:10 AM
I'll summarize the thread and agree:
It should have been called a Flagrant 1. But it's not an excuse for MU's loss.
1.True 2.True
Quote from: damuts222 on March 23, 2012, 08:05:03 AM
In my opinion the ref's did not make the call because they knew of the possible implications it could have on the game. Essentially they didn't want to play a part in letting MU back in the game. That being said I have mixed emotions on what the call should have been and if Wilson was hit to begin with.
They had no problem calling a lane violation on Notre Dame for a guy crossing the three point line to decide a game.
They've had no problem in the past saying a player stepped on the line on an inbounds pass to decide a game.
If something happens you have to call it no matter the situation.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 23, 2012, 09:17:26 AM
They had no problem calling a lane violation on Notre Dame for a guy crossing the three point line to decide a game.
They've had no problem in the past saying a player stepped on the line on an inbounds pass to decide a game.
If something happens you have to call it no matter the situation.
The worst part: they made all those calls without the benefit of an HD flat screen in front of their faces.
And no, I'm not blaming refs. But that no-call. Just...yuck.
I agree it should have been a Flagrant 1. However, I'm guessing the refs relied on the following, which is from the NCAA rule book:
Major Officiating Concerns for Men
Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 Fouls for Elbow Contact
Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above
or below the shoulders; swinging of the elbow is required for the foul to be
classified as a flagrant 1 or 2 foul. Some incidental contact is being penalized
improperly.
I think there was elbow swinging and it was more than incidental contact, bur unfortunately my opinion doesn't count. Under this standard I think they also got the call on DJO wrong, as his contact was nothing compared to the elbow hitting Jamil.
Definitely thought it was a Flagrant I. On the other hand, very fortunate Jamil didn't tear up his knee on that play the way it folded under him. That would have been a disaster. Love his potential. He has the capability to be as versatile as Jae with continued development in my opinion. Nice length with skills.
At the least shouldn't it have been called a regular foul?
They can't make it foul after reviewing it, but in live play it was clear what happened.
The part that rankles me is the "basketball play" variation.
Certainly, I feel what Will Sheehy of Indiana did was more of a "basketball play" (the swinging of a ball up top to clear space) than what occurred last night. Movement in the trailing arm definitely happens. Swinging the trailing arm in a slapping motion as you clearly pass the attempted defender is not a "basketball play".
Of course, Sheehy was nailed with the Flagrant 1 which nearly cost his team the game whereas Boynton got away with no punishment.
Then again, it wasn't as bad a unnatural carnal knowledge up as those donkeys in the Louisville-State game where they couldn't even identify which Cards player should be taking foul shots. Officials suck.
I thought they Florida player contorted his body trying to get around Wilson while staying inbounds. Once past Wilson he flailed his arms trying to keep his balance without losing the ball. I'm sure we've all been off balance to the point that your arms do whatever is necessary to not fall over. Wilson's face happened to be where that guy's arm needed to go to keep balance.
That being said. Is an elbow to the face a foul no matter what? If I'm playing hockey and I flail my stick around and pop somebody when I'm trying to keep my balance I'll get whistled for a high-stick. Intent doesn't matter, it's a dangerous play.
the thing that makes it more than jsut a basketball move to me is the pure size of the players involved. His elbow had to be extended very high to even reach Jamil's face. If he was jumping for a rebound and his elbow came down on Jamil's head that is one thing, but he was trying to clear Jamil out which is a foul to begin with.
Am I the only one that isn't sure there was contact? Wilson's reaction seemed a little too late after the supposed elbow for it to be genuine. I was hoping against hope they would give us that call, because if they did we suddenly had a chance to be down only 4 with the ball and plenty of time. Seems to me the refs could not 100% confirm it and since that call would have been inordinately huge considering the consequences and game situation decided not to make the call. So while I wanted that call, I don't feel like we got robbed.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on March 23, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
I thought they Florida player contorted his body trying to get around Wilson while staying inbounds. Once past Wilson he flailed his arms trying to keep his balance without losing the ball. I'm sure we've all been off balance to the point that your arms do whatever is necessary to not fall over. Wilson's face happened to be where that guy's arm needed to go to keep balance.
That being said. Is an elbow to the face a foul no matter what? If I'm playing hockey and I flail my stick around and pop somebody when I'm trying to keep my balance I'll get whistled for a high-stick. Intent doesn't matter, it's a dangerous play.
Exactly. Otherwise, you're going to have Yancy Gates saying, "I had to punch the guy, I was losing my balance."
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on March 23, 2012, 09:22:14 AM
The worst part: they made all those calls without the benefit of an HD flat screen in front of their faces.
And no, I'm not blaming refs. But that no-call. Just...yuck.
for that call they did have an HD tv in front of them.
Quote from: seakm4 on March 23, 2012, 12:09:00 PM
for that call they did have an HD tv in front of them.
I know. All the more dumbfounding that the Florida player was not assessed a Flagrant 1.
QuoteAm I the only one that isn't sure there was contact? Wilson's reaction seemed a little too late after the supposed elbow for it to be genuine. I was hoping against hope they would give us that call, because if they did we suddenly had a chance to be down only 4 with the ball and plenty of time. Seems to me the refs could not 100% confirm it and since that call would have been inordinately huge considering the consequences and game situation decided not to make the call. So while I wanted that call, I don't feel like we got robbed.
I was and am still unsure on whether or not there was contact even with the replays, the angles were bad. I honestly don't think it was intentional, but the rule book says that even if you swing an elbow it is at least a Flagrant 1. I agree with that. But can you even call a foul that you didn't see in real time and saw on replay?
Jay Bilas said something a week or two ago about refs making/missing calls. He said that while watching a game in real time you do not know what the correct call is then you shouldn't complain about the call regardless of what the call is. Think about that next time you watch a replay in any sport, reffing is not easy.
Instead of studying for my board exams, I've spent some time looking at these stupid flagrant foul revision rules. Here is everything you need to know.
4-29.2.c 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:
4-29.2.c.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
4-36.7.a The following shall be considered excessive swinging: When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot.
10-1.13 Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul
So following the example in 4-29.2.c.6 it should have been called a flagrant 1. Using 10-1.13, Boyton's contact was illegal because it was caused by swinging of the elbow that resulted from total body movement and occured above the shoulders. That's all you need to know. It can be non-excessive contact according to 4-29.2.c.6. According to these specific rules together, a flagrant 1 should have been called regardless of the situation and regardless of the intent of the player.
However, one thing needs to be changed. If the example in 4-29.2.c.6 which included non-excessive contact, then the definition of a flagrant 1 in 4-29.2.c, which states "a personal foul deemed excessive in nature," needs to be inclusive of non-excessive contact as well. Also, a select few have deemed Boyton's foul to be incidental; however, according to the rules stated previously, the contact is clearly illegal and thus can not fit definition of incidental.
Between the discrepancies in the Boyton and DJO calls in our game and the calls made in the Colorado State v Murray St game and Indiana v VCU game, there is clearly a misunderstanding and misinterpretation by the referees about this rule. This might be expected early in the basketball season when the rules are first implemented, but it is not acceptable during NCAA tournament games, let alone a Sweet 16 game. If these rules are going to stay in place, NCAA needs to coach their referees on proper implementation of these rules.
Here ya on the speed of the game but the foul actually requires a tv replay due to the head injury repercussions. The replays and announcers confirmed there was dangerous contact.
And Florida kicked MUs butt through and through, but a flagrant there reverses a MU foul, and gives MU two free throws and the ball with the potential to cut the lead to 2 or 1. IMO, that is a tough call to make in a final determination of a game dominated by the offending team. Concussion injuries are not discretionary though. The crew should be penalized plain and simple in my view.
May be sour grapes---The call should have been made. I think the refs choked, period. 9 out of ten time the call would have been made because
rules are rules. Follow them.