Michigan-Ohio State ending

[jesmu84]

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/1799489/i-promise-youve-never-seen-a-play-like-this-costing-michigan-the-game-against-ohio-state

Weird

[mu_hilltopper]

I wish they scrapped the "Flagrant" foul entirely.

I swear, 90% of the time it's called, I disagree with it, including this one.

[MU82]

That was wacky. I couldn't believe that was called a flagrant.

[forgetful]

I guess I'm an outlier here. Intentionally grabbing the defenders jersey, leading to him being pulled into the defender and tearing the jersey, was completely unnecessary and could have led to an injury. Should be a flagrant 1 (equivalent of old intentional foul).

That doesn't even take into consideration the fact that it was done intentionally to make it look like the defender fouled him.

Also, upon review they can't take away the original foul call, so if they don't call a flagrant, the Michigan player is going to the line with the chance to win it.

[MU82]

I guess I'm an outlier here. Intentionally grabbing the defenders jersey, leading to him being pulled into the defender and tearing the jersey, was completely unnecessary and could have led to an injury. Should be a flagrant 1 (equivalent of old intentional foul).

That doesn't even take into consideration the fact that it was done intentionally to make it look like the defender fouled him.

Also, upon review they can't take away the original foul call, so if they don't call a flagrant, the Michigan player is going to the line with the chance to win it.

I did not think he intentionally reached out to grab the jersey to pull the defender into himself. I thought he reached out instinctively as he was falling to cushion his own fall.

Have you seen quotes to support the viewpoint you asserted? Indeed, the only quote I saw was Juwan Howard saying the ref specifically told him the jersey grab was to brace the Michigan player's fall.

[forgetful]

I did not think he intentionally reached out to grab the jersey to pull the defender into himself. I thought he reached out instinctively as he was falling to cushion his own fall.

Have you seen quotes to support the viewpoint you asserted? Indeed, the only quote I saw was Juwan Howard saying the ref specifically told him the jersey grab was to brace the Michigan player's fall.

Quotes after the fact don't support any stance. Just going off what I saw. Looked intentional, it isn't something you ever see on that kind of play (which happens all the time), rewarding the Michigan player for dangerously grabbing the defender (even if unintentional) would be wrong.

[Jay Bee]

I did not think he intentionally reached out to grab the jersey to pull the defender into himself. I thought he reached out instinctively as he was falling to cushion his own fall.

So what (I disagree, but so what?)? A flagrant foul does not require intention. If it's deemed "excessive in nature (unwarranted or too much)", it can be a flagrant foul.

I've watched a lot of basketball and I don't see many jerseys ripping no matter the circumstances. Maybe tOSU has awful jersey quality, but I'm OK with the call.

[jsglow]

I guess I'm an outlier here. Intentionally grabbing the defenders jersey, leading to him being pulled into the defender and tearing the jersey, was completely unnecessary and could have led to an injury. Should be a flagrant 1 (equivalent of old intentional foul).

That doesn't even take into consideration the fact that it was done intentionally to make it look like the defender fouled him.

Also, upon review they can't take away the original foul call, so if they don't call a flagrant, the Michigan player is going to the line with the chance to win it.

I think I'm in forgetful's camp but must admit that I don't know the technical rule.  The Michigan player certainly drove with the intention of making the basket or 'earning' contact and getting to the line.  Fine.  A foul was called.  Not sure the OSU guy fouled him but that happens all the time.

But intentionally or not, he did excessively grab his opponent's jersey causing both to take a pretty nasty fall.  Rough enough that injury to one or both could have been the result.  As JB said, no evaluation of actual intent is apparently required by rule.  And I've never seen a jersey ripped like that so obviously the Michigan guy held on extremely tight.  Also, would the OSU guy even be allowed back on the court until such time as a repair/replacement was possible?  Could that have been deemed some kind of unfair advantage for Michigan?  I'm okay with the call.

[Billy Hoyle]

I did not think he intentionally reached out to grab the jersey to pull the defender into himself. I thought he reached out instinctively as he was falling to cushion his own fall.

Have you seen quotes to support the viewpoint you asserted? Indeed, the only quote I saw was Juwan Howard saying the ref specifically told him the jersey grab was to brace the Michigan player's fall.

That was my opinion too. Considering the way he was falling I highly doubt he had the time to decide to grab the jersey, it was instinct, as others have said.

That call may cost UM a tourney bid. They are a far worse team without Livers out there and have to play a seething MSU team this weekend.

[Jay Bee]

Per the 2019-20 NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Book --

c. Flagrant personal fouls. Flagrant fouls are personal fouls that are deemed to be a more serious offense than a common foul. The penalty for a flagrant 1 foul is two free throws and possession of the ball for a throw-in. The penalty for a flagrant 2 foul is two free throws, possession of the ball for a throw-in, and ejection of the offending player.

1. Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature (unwarranted or too much) and/or unnecessary (avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play), but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:

a) Causing excessive or unnecessary contact with an opponent;

b) Contact with an opponent that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player;

c) Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score. Depending on the severity of the contact and the potential for injury, this type of foul could rise to the level of a flagrant 2 foul;

d) 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;

e) Contact with a player making a throw-in;

f) 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 (See Rule 4-18.7);

g) Illegal contact caused by a player hooking an opponent over or under the arm and which may lead the offcial to believe the contact was caused by the opponent. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul could be considered a flagrant 2 foul; and

h) Contact with an opponent that is not the result of a normal basketball play. "Normal basketball play" is defined as any activity by a player, including incidental contact, which is generally accepted as that which occurs in a basketball game when the player is attempting to make a legal offensive or defensive play.

2. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe (brutal, harsh, cruel) or extreme (dangerous, punishing),while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:

a) The severity of the contact;

b) Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors, such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact. Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, this foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;

c) The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position). Depending on the nature of the contact, or the result of the contact, the foul also could be considered a flagrant 1 or common personal foul;

d) Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental; and

e) Any foul similar to the foul described in Rule 4-15.2.c.1.g in which the contact, or the result of the contact, is not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

Note: The above acts represent examples of potential flagrant 2 fouls. Other acts may also qualify, if they meet the criteria of being not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

[BrewCity83]

Grabbing a defenders jersey and pulling him into you with such force that it rips a hole in the defender's jersey and causes both players to fall to the ground is clearly not a "normal basketball act" and should be a Flagrant 1 under section 1(h).

Rule 2(d) is clearly the Brad Davison Rule.

[Billy Hoyle]

Grabbing a defenders jersey and pulling him into you with such force that it rips a hole in the defender's jersey and causes both players to fall to the ground is clearly not a "normal basketball act" and should be a Flagrant 1 under section 1(h).

Rule 2(d) is clearly the Brad Davison Rule.

what if such contact is not intended but rather incidental, or done for protection, as the play last night seemed to be.

[MU82]

Still not a fan of the ruling. But it does seem to be there in black and white, so I stand down.

[Jay Bee]

what if such contact is not intended but rather incidental, or done for protection, as the play last night seemed to be.

Intention is not needed. To try to grab a guys arm to break a fall is one thing; to literally grab his shirt such that you tear the eff out of it is another. "Too much" for me, although if tOSU studies their shirts and proclaims them as cheap and crappy, I may change my mind

[mu_hilltopper]

Curious for the people commenting .. not "was it a foul" .. but do you think it *should* be a foul -- and not just any foul, a serious foul that gives the team shots plus the ball?

Roughly, fine, if it's in the rules, it's a foul.  Should it be in the rulebook?

As I wrote before, 90% of the time an F1 is called, I think it's just basketball and they should leave it alone.   Guys hands and arms are flying everywhere, constantly.    Indeed, I do think it should be a judgement call of whether or not the offending player had an intent to injure or otherwise be an a-hole (oops, my fist went into your nuts.)   

[jsglow]

I certainly don't know about any of this but the next time Floppy McNutpuncher hits an opponent 'where it counts' he ought to be done for the year.  I trust the Big 10 already told Barry and Gard.

[keefe]

Maybe tOSU has awful      quality

Why limit it to clothing?