Flagrant Foul Rule

[Benny B]

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."

[seakm4]

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.

[LON]

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.

[damuts222]

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.

  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.

[bedinger412]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[Earl Tatum]

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.