What Just Happened?!

[BrooklynRoss]

That call was terrible.  There is no such thing as an "intentional" foul call, which by the way I think there should be, and that did not meet any standard anyone has ever seen for a flagrant call.  The worst part is they reviewed it and changed the call to flagrant.

Former referee chiming in. This was definitely a Flagrant 1 for several reasons.

1) No play on the ball. You are taught to "reach in" (hit the player with the ball in the stomach going for the ball) in late-game situations when you're behind.

2) Excessive contact. You do not push (with force) a player in the back, ever. That would be a flagrant even if you're up by 30 points.

3) The trip was incidental but made the call easier to make.

The Seton Hall player made a very, very stupid mistake and the referees made the right call.

[azhog10]

It's shocking that you're in this thread after a win arguing against the hogs.

Not really. There's three or four who are complaining even after winning this game.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Former referee chiming in. This was definitely a Flagrant 1 for several reasons.

1) No play on the ball. You are taught to "reach in" (hit the player with the ball in the stomach going for the ball) in late-game situations when you're behind.

2) Excessive contact. You do not push (with force) a player in the back, ever. That would be a flagrant even if you're up by 30 points.

3) The trip was incidental but made the call easier to make.

The Seton Hall player made a very, very stupid mistake and the referees made the right call.

+about a billion

[EastexHawg]

It's shocking that you're in this thread after a win arguing against the hogs.

My eyes work the same regardless of who wins a basketball game.  The foul was intentional, designed to do nothing more than stop the clock and make the Hogs shoot free throws.  So is every other foul at the end of every game.  It's a little game the coaches and the officials play, and the fact that the grabbing is designed to draw a foul rather than as part of any legitimate attempt to steal the ball never draws the flagrant call.  Except today it did.

If the officials want to start calling all those grabbing fouls flagrant I'm okay with it.  As I said, I think any foul inside the last two minutes should involve one shot and the ball out of bounds.  I hate fouling at the end of games as a strategy for catching up.  All that said, that call was inconsistent with the way basketball has been called for years...maybe decades.  I know it and you know it whether you want to admit it or not.

[Science Fiction Greg]

My eyes work the same regardless of who wins a basketball game.  The foul was intentional, designed to do nothing more than stop the clock and make the Hogs shoot free throws.  So is every other foul at the end of every game.  It's a little game the coaches and the officials play, and the fact that the grabbing is designed to draw a foul rather than as part of any legitimate attempt to steal the ball never draws the flagrant call.  Except today it did.

If the officials want to start calling all those grabbing fouls flagrant I'm okay with it.  As I said, I think any foul inside the last two minutes should involve one shot and the ball out of bounds.  I hate fouling at the end of games as a strategy for catching up.  All that said, that call was inconsistent with the way basketball has been called for years...maybe decades.  I know it and you know it whether you want to admit it or not.

Your eyes don't work at all.  He didn't grab anything.  He shoved him in the back as he went by him with a clear path to the basket.

[HoopS]

F1.

All day.

Obvious

[ricepig]

Your eyes don't work at all.  He didn't grab anything.  He shoved him in the back as he went by him with a clear path to the basket.

Appears to be his problem, he doesn't know a grab from a push.......

[EastexHawg]

This is the video of the foul.  Pushed with excessive force in the back?  It looks like he came in from the side to me.  I guess maybe my definition of "excessive" is a little different, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt0Lrb7LkNE

[Hog Fan...DOH!]

I wish I had the ability to see and believe whatever fits what I want to happen.  It must be a real gift.

That is exactly what you are doing right now.

[Science Fiction Greg]

This is the video of the foul.  Pushed with excessive force in the back?  It looks like he came in from the side to me.  I guess maybe my definition of "excessive" is a little different, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt0Lrb7LkNE

Funny.  I didn't use the words "excessive force" at all, but that seems to be all you are arguing with.  I've seen the video dozens of times.

[hogsanity]

This is the video of the foul.  Pushed with excessive force in the back?  It looks like he came in from the side to me.  I guess maybe my definition of "excessive" is a little different, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt0Lrb7LkNE

By the book it was a f1, no doubt. IF you look at another angle he put a hand in Barford's back. I contend, as you do though, that most fouls at the end of the game are done with no play on the ball, and therefore could be deemed excessive and a f1. I would actually like to see them called that way more often.

[HoopS]

This is the video of the foul.  Pushed with excessive force in the back?  It looks like he came in from the side to me.  I guess maybe my definition of "excessive" is a little different, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt0Lrb7LkNE

good grief.

Literally at the :02 mark of that video, as in two seconds from the start, his right hand is on his back. Hence pushed from the back. His left hand is on the side but it only takes one hand to count as a push there.

[EastexHawg]

Funny.  I didn't use the words "excessive force" at all, but that seems to be all you are arguing with.  I've seen the video dozens of times.

You aren't the only one posting in the thread.  That said, if you don't think he pushed Barford with excessive force what in your mind makes it a flagrant foul?

[lumphog]

HARD FOUL....F1, by Dickie V's alma mater....You can't make this stuff up
How Sweeeeet it is   #Sweet16 #SuckItDickieV

[Science Fiction Greg]

Though, I guess if you want to argue that the right hand being squarely on the number and the left hand being on the back of his left shoulder isn't "shoving in the back" squarely enough for you, be my guest.

LOL

[Science Fiction Greg]

You aren't the only one posting in the thread.  That said, if you don't think he pushed Barford with excessive force what in your mind makes it a flagrant foul?

The fact that it followed word for word the definition of flagrant one foul.  Which says nothing about "excessive force."

[a0ashle]

4 opinions that are not mutually exclusive.

1. That was a f1 by the book
2. That f1 shouldn't have been called
3. I'd be pissed if it went against us.
4. I'm happy that it didn't.

[HoopS]

Though, I guess if you want to argue that the right hand being squarely on the number and the left hand being on the back of his left shoulder isn't "shoving in the back" squarely enough for you, be my guest.

LOL

I once heard it said that some have the ability to see what they want.

Now where did I read that.

Oh wait...

[Jackrabbit Hog]

This is the video of the foul.  Pushed with excessive force in the back?  It looks like he came in from the side to me.  I guess maybe my definition of "excessive" is a little different, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt0Lrb7LkNE

Your voice is much higher than I always assumed it was..

[a0ashle]

The fact that it followed word for word the definition of flagrant one foul.  Which says nothing about "excessive force."

Not to mention a shove is always excessive.

[PLHawg]

Fans on Hogville griping about us getting a favorable call.  SMH

[rude1]

Former referee chiming in. This was definitely a Flagrant 1 for several reasons.

1) No play on the ball. You are taught to "reach in" (hit the player with the ball in the stomach going for the ball) in late-game situations when you're behind.

2) Excessive contact. You do not push (with force) a player in the back, ever. That would be a flagrant even if you're up by 30 points.

3) The trip was incidental but made the call easier to make.

The Seton Hall player made a very, very stupid mistake and the referees made the right call.

Absolutely correct breakdown on why it's the correct call. You can't make a two handed shove in the back of a player, the SH player made a critical mistake right there, reach in from behind at the ball to make the foul is the right play there.

[hogmolar]

I really hate that teams are allowed to use fouling to make it impossible for opponents to run their offense as they see fit at the end of games (see Kansas vs. Memphis in the championship game for Exhibit A), but we see the exact same play and same foul in every game every day.  That the officials chose to call that a flagrant foul, be it that situation or any other, is hard to understand.

I personally think that on all fouls in the last two minutes the team that is fouled should have the option of one free throw and taking the ball out of bounds.  That would speed up the ends of games and force teams to play defense rather than relying on fouling.

They were fouling right there because the shot clock was off. This, as a defense, is the only way to extend the game in hopes to win. 

[hogsanity]

They were fouling right there because the shot clock was off. This, as a defense, is the only way to extend the game in hopes to win. 

That is exactly his point. Basketball is the only sport where the defense can commit violations to force the offense to do something, without the clock running mind you, that will result in a good chance of the defense regaining possession.

Can you imagine in football if the defense could jump off sides, and the result was the offense having to try a 35 or 40 yard FG?

[HoopS]

Baseball you can intentionally walk a better hitter to force a weaker one to hit.

[hawginbigd1]

That call was terrible.  There is no such thing as an "intentional" foul call, which by the way I think there should be, and that did not meet any standard anyone has ever seen for a flagrant call.  The worst part is they reviewed it and changed the call to flagrant.

Wrong, I wish people even tried to know what they are talking about when they comment so authoritatively. You must make a play on the ball or make it look like an attempt to play the ball. This player shoved Barford from behind with 2 hands with no attempt to play the ball. The trip or flop by Barford has nothing to do with the call that was made, it was 100% correct!

[EastexHawg]

The fact that it followed word for word the definition of flagrant one foul.  Which says nothing about "excessive force."

Can you post a link to that definition?  I can't find it online.  If we're all going to argue about the definition it might help if we all knew what it is according to the rule book.

[hogsanity]

Baseball you can intentionally walk a better hitter to force a weaker one to hit.

But the offense still gets to continue in the normal flow of the game, plus IBB is not a violation of any rule.

[Science Fiction Greg]

Can you post a link to that definition?  I can't find it online.  If we're all going to argue about the definition it might help if we all knew what it is according to the rule book.

It was literally put on the screen next to a replay of the incident in the middle of the game.  Good lord.  Like it took up half the screen.  Look it up yourself.  I'm done with you.  You're a clown.  You had to have not even watched it to not know that.

Here.  I'll even help you out.  A little charity.  The director of officials even quoted the rule and article for you when he explained it on national television.  Just watch that again, he'll help you find it.

Good lord.

[hogsanity]

Can you post a link to that definition?  I can't find it online.  If we're all going to argue about the definition it might help if we all knew what it is according to the rule book.

actually f1 DOES mention excessive contact

[EastexHawg]

Wrong, I wish people even tried to know what they are talking about when they comment so authoritatively. You must make a play on the ball or make it look like an attempt to play the ball. This player shoved Barford from behind with 2 hands with no attempt to play the ball. The trip or flop by Barford has nothing to do with the call that was made, it was 100% correct!

I said we don't see that type of foul called a flagrant.  It's inconsistent with the way basketball games are called.  Do you disagree?

And since I'm not an authority on what is and isn't a flagrant foul, why doesn't someone who is post the definition?

[HoopS]

But the offense still gets to continue in the normal flow of the game, plus IBB is not a violation of any rule.

I know. Just saying there are ways to force the other team to do things a different way if desired. Obviously not talking about the "against the rules" part but just gameplay.

[EastexHawg]

actually f1 DOES mention excessive contact

I know it does.  I'd just like to see Mr. "I'm done with you" post it. 

[sowmonella]

F the Fans on Hogville griping about us getting a favorable call.  SMH

Fixed

[hogsanity]

I know. Just saying there are ways to force the other team to do things a different way if desired. Obviously not talking about the "against the rules" part but just gameplay.

Not the same at all. Fouling to stop the clock and force ft's is noting like a ibb. What is even worse in BBall is that the offense gets fouled, gets a 1-1 or 2 shots, then the opponent gets to go down and take a shot for 3.

[EastexHawg]

This is from the NCAA rule change in 2011:

An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be when a player swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word "intentional," because a player's intent was never the point to the rule.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-05-26/prop-approves-rules-changes

Looking at that, can someone explain how what happened on that play makes it a flagrant foul, especially in the context of how college basketball games are typically called?

[Science Fiction Greg]

Rule 4, Article 2 - 2.c.3 - as referenced by the head of officials.

It is a definition of Flagrant 1 fouls.  It literally says this, copy/pasted from the official rule book:

3� Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;

Look it up yourself.

You will notice, when you get there, that the definition of flagrant two DOES specify that the severity of the act should be considered.  Here is a screenshot with the relevant part highlighted in yellow for you, and you can see the beginning of the definition of flagrant two below.



Testament to your googling skills.  About as good as your vision, I guess.  It took about 15 seconds to find that.  Hilarious, because this was also on screen during the game broadcast, too, and you still don't get it.

[Earl]

nm

[moses_007]

I was surprised, too, but I wouldn't call it a break.  It fit the description they put on the screen for a flagrant 1 to the letter.  Weber's excuse was you can't call that because they are instructed to foul.  Nice one, Chris.  I guess as long as the coach instructs them to, it's legal to sit cross legged inside the actual basket with an umbrella.

It was clearly flagrant.  Barford was pushed down hard to the floor from his back.  Definitely intentional, and definitely flagrant.

[Hawgar The Horrible]

I said we don't see that type of foul called a flagrant.  It's inconsistent with the way basketball games are called.  Do you disagree?

And since I'm not an authority on what is and isn't a flagrant foul, why doesn't someone who is post the definition?

No. You said it was a terrible call. It wasn't due to the fact no play was made on the ball and a player landed on his face having been shoved by a defender.

Whether or not that call is commonplace is irrelevant. It met all  the criteria for a Flagrant 1...like it or not.

[PonderinHog]

We won.  Some people are still upset.   

[Science Fiction Greg]

This is from the NCAA rule change in 2011:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-05-26/prop-approves-rules-changes

Looking at that, can someone explain how what happened on that play makes it a flagrant foul, especially in the context of how college basketball games are typically called?

Sure, you are citing one of the "some examples of flagrant one foul" but are forgetting it says "but not limited to."  Example three is word for word what happened in our game as you can see in the screenshot.

[Jackrabbit Hog]

We won.  Some people are still upset.   

Why you so mad, Ponderin?     

[HoopS]

Not the same at all. Fouling to stop the clock and force ft's is noting like a ibb. What is even worse in BBall is that the offense gets fouled, gets a 1-1 or 2 shots, then the opponent gets to go down and take a shot for 3.

I didn't say it was the same. I said it was something the D could do to force an offense to do something differently than they wanted.

But I digress.

We won fair and square. Tough game. Hats off to SH. UNC will be brutally tough.

[PonderinHog]

Rule 4, Article 2 - 2.c.3 - as referenced by the head of officials.

It is a definition of Flagrant 1 fouls.  It literally says this, copy/pasted from the official rule book:

3� Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;

Look it up yourself.

You will notice, when you get there, that the definition of flagrant two DOES specify that the severity of the act should be considered.  Here is a screenshot with the relevant part highlighted in yellow for you, and you can see the beginning of the definition of flagrant two below.



Testament to your googling skills.  About as good as your vision, I guess.  It took about 15 seconds to find that.  Hilarious, because this was also on screen during the game broadcast, too, and you still don't get it.

He violated rules #2 and #3.

[Science Fiction Greg]

He violated rules #2 and #3.

Very true.  Either one indepently qualifies as flagrant one.

[PonderinHog]

[EastexHawg]

1.  Barford wasn't pushed "from behind".  The Seton Hall player came in from his left side.
2.  Even if he was fouled from behind, that wouldn't automatically make the foul flagrant.  Is someone coming over the back on a rebound or running into the back of a screener always a flagrant foul?
3.  There was no clear path to the basket.  Another Seton Hall player was between Barford and the hoop.
4.  The rule says the contact must be excessive, with no attempt to play the ball OR THE PLAYER. 

It's obvious that because this call went the "right way" this time a lot of you agree with it.  Ask yourselves honestly, if the same thing happens in the North Carolina game but the Hogs are trying to commit a foul to stop the clock are you going to want to high five the officials?

What is right is right, and what is consistently called is what is consistently called, regardless of which side the call benefits.  That foul is almost never called a flagrant 1 despite the fact that the intent was clearly to stop the clock and force free throws.

[jm]

It was the correct call by rule, but it is a tough call at that moment in the game.

[Science Fiction Greg]

1.  Barford wasn't pushed "from behind".  The Seton Hall player came in from his left side.
2.  Even if he was fouled from behind, that wouldn't automatically make the foul flagrant.  Is someone coming over the back on a rebound or running into the back of a screener always a flagrant foul?
3.  There was no clear path to the basket.  Another Seton Hall player was between Barford and the hoop.
4.  The rule says the contact must be excessive, with no attempt to play the ball OR THE PLAYER. 

It's obvious that because this call went the "right way" this time a lot of you agree with it.  Ask yourselves honestly, if the same thing happens in the North Carolina game but the Hogs are trying to commit a foul to stop the clock are you going to want to high five the officials?

What is right is right, and what is consistently called is what is consistently called, regardless of which side the call benefits.  That foul is almost never called a flagrant 1 despite the fact that the intent was clearly to stop the clock and force free throws.

LOL

Literally everything you said is wrong and has been contradicted by visual evidence in this thread, confirmed by not only officials on this very message board (and I think in this thread), but confirmed by the head of officiating nationwide for the NCAA.

This is where you really should just stop digging.  And I need to stop responding for real this time.

But you just keep doing you.  It's...impressive.