Flagrant or no?

[Science Fiction Greg]

well, the consistent call there is a foul and Barford to the line. Everyone knows in the last minute the team behind is fouling intentionally, not playing the ball, but it is CONSISTENTLY not called a f1.

The word "intentional" has been removed from the rule.  Intent doesn't matter.  It literally describes the exact situation that happened in the game in the rule.  Word for word.  And it is not an identical situation that happens in all of these last minute "intentional" fouling situations.  The differences is this was a two-handed push in the back to prevent a scoring opportunity with no play on the ball.  That does NOT happen over and over at the end of games.  Reaching out and grabbing a player to foul them happens, yes, but it can be argued they were at least swiping for the ball.  They definitely are not shoving them in the back with both hands when the ballhandler has a clear path to the basket.

These "it happens every game" arguments are just wrong and have been dispatched by both the head of officiating for the entire country and, of all people, Bruce freaking Pearl.

[factchecker]

It is not always a shove from behind, but how many times when a team is trying to stop the clock do they just reach out and grab a guy, or slap a guys are, or basically bear hug him, and no f1 is called? Those are ALL intention fouls with no play on the ball.

Are the guys driving to the basket?  That is the major difference.

[Russ22]

I think this says everything....

The officials called a regular foul knowing that they would review whether or not it was flagrant. After deliberation and watching the replay, they correctly called a flagrant foul AND then explained to the TV/radio row that the foul was flagrant because there was no attempt on the ball.

[Science Fiction Greg]

It is not always a shove from behind, but how many times when a team is trying to stop the clock do they just reach out and grab a guy, or slap a guys are, or basically bear hug him, and no f1 is called? Those are ALL intention fouls with no play on the ball.

Intent is irrelevant.  The wording of the rule literally describes, word for word, a shove from behind to prevent a scoring opportunity.  Asking how many times something completely different happens doesn't really apply.

[Little Lady Back]

Take that Dickie V!!

[Hogz87]

It absolutely, no doubt about it was a flagrant.

[factchecker]

there was no attempt on the ball.

You are correct.  If the SH player wasn't lazy he would have cut in front of Barford and slapped at the ball reaching across his body = foul = 1 and 1.  Instead, he ran to the backside and shoved Barford.

Heck, you never know.  If the kid goes in front maybe Barford coughs up the ball and they have the last shot.  Move your feet and go for the ball.

[Science Fiction Greg]

I think this says everything....

The officials called a regular foul knowing that they would review whether or not it was flagrant. After deliberation and watching the replay, they correctly called a flagrant foul AND then explained to the TV/radio row that the foul was flagrant because there was no attempt on the ball.

And if it didn't say everything (which you are right, it does), the national head of officiating then confirms that not only was it the correct call, explains why, and explains how it is different from plays that happen "every game," he also praised the officials for calling the regular foul and reviewing it on the monitor before calling it a flagrant one.

And we still have morons that don't get it.

[BrooklynRoss]

By the letter of the law? Yes.

Would I as an official called it? No

Actual (previous) official chiming in. This is definitely a flagrant 1. No play on the ball. The two-handed push in the back (with force) would actually be all you'd need to call it. The (albeit inadvertent) trip sealed the deal. It's not even up for debate.

[hogsanity]

The word "intentional" has been removed from the rule.  Intent doesn't matter.  It literally describes the exact situation that happened in the game in the rule.  Word for word.  And it is not an identical situation that happens in all of these last minute "intentional" fouling situations.  The differences is this was a two-handed push in the back to prevent a scoring opportunity with no play on the ball.  That does NOT happen over and over at the end of games.  Reaching out and grabbing a player to foul them happens, yes, but it can be argued they were at least swiping for the ball.  They definitely are not shoving them in the back with both hands when the ballhandler has a clear path to the basket.

These "it happens every game" arguments are just wrong and have been dispatched by both the head of officiating for the entire country and, of all people, Bruce freaking Pearl.

But it also still encompasses what was formerly known as "intentional fouls", thus the not making a play on the ball part.

Again, though, I am not arguing that it did not meet the book definition of a flagrant 1, I am saying lots of calls when teams are fouling to stop the clock could be deemed flagrant because no play is being made on the ball.

[ricepig]

https://twitter.com/ArRecruitingGuy/status/842831517172736001

[Ironhawg]

Does Arkansas win without the flagrant call?

[factchecker]

Does Arkansas win without the flagrant call?

Barford would have shot free throws (I can't remember if it was 1-1 or 2).  Still have a great chance regardless.  The pivotal play was when Seton Hall traveled.

[hogsanity]

Does Arkansas win without the flagrant call?

I believe they would have.

[Biggus Piggus]

Does Arkansas win without the flagrant call?

Without the flagrant call, Arkansas gets two free throws and a 3-point lead. Seton Hall gets the basketball. Seton Hall has scored 11 points in the past 10 minutes. Unless something drastically changes, Seton Hall probably does not score again.

[Tejano Jawg]

I saw both tv panels talk about the play. 99% said it was the right call, by rule. Several added it was the SH defender's fault for not swatting at, or making any kind of play on the ball. The trip was real, but all said this had nothing to do with it.

One guy had a good example of this rule—if a defender grabs a guy (who's breaking away for an easy layup) by the jersey, it's an F1. There was not excessive or violent intent...just no attempt on the ball. So F1.

Us Arkies are in a strange spot. Throughout history we'll have games change, in favor of the other team, on HORRIBLE calls. Now, we are benefitted by a CORRECT call (not a gift) and we're all out of sorts. 

[TexArkHogFan]

I find it ironic that after Dickie V lambasted the Hogs for a flagrant foul in the KY game that now HIS team is called for a flagrant call in the final minute.  Wonder what he's got to say about that.  Agree, we would have won without the call, but it made the final minute go by a little bit easier. 

[Biggus Piggus]

I saw both tv panels talk about the play. 99% said it was the right call, by rule. Several added it was the SH defender's fault for not swatting at, or making any kind of play on the ball. The trip was real, but all said this had nothing to do with it.

One guy had a good example of this rule—if a defender grabs a guy (who's breaking away for an easy layup) by the jersey, it's an F1. There was not excessive or violent intent...just no attempt on the ball. So F1.

Us Arkies are in a strange spot. Throughout history we'll have games change, in favor of the other team, on HORRIBLE calls. Now, we are benefitted by a CORRECT call (not a gift) and we're all out of sorts. 

Well, we went through the whole game to that point feeling like the officiating was touchy on their end, no-blood-no-foul on our end.

[PonderinHog]

You are correct.  If the SH player wasn't lazy he would have cut in front of Barford and slapped at the ball reaching across his body = foul = 1 and 1.  Instead, he ran to the backside and shoved Barford.

Heck, you never know.  If the kid goes in front maybe Barford coughs up the ball and they have the last shot.  Move your feet and go for the ball.

Lazy?  He might have been tired.   

[lumphog]

Take that Dickie V!!

[hogsanity]

Well, we went through the whole game to that point feeling like the officiating was touchy on their end, no-blood-no-foul on our end.

Really? Did no one see how much body contact there was on the MK block, with no call? If they were being touchy feely, they would certainly have called MK with the body on that one.

[factchecker]

Lazy?  He might have been tired.   

Yep.  Hawg Ball will do that to ya. 

[HoopS]

You are correct.  If the SH player wasn't lazy he would have cut in front of Barford and slapped at the ball reaching across his body = foul = 1 and 1.  Instead, he ran to the backside and shoved Barford.

Heck, you never know.  If the kid goes in front maybe Barford coughs up the ball and they have the last shot.  Move your feet and go for the ball.

would have been two shots. In bonus plus

[Bigmac2]

Doug Shows would have called it a foul against Barford for charging his shoe.

Absolutely. I couldn't have said it better than that. Frick SEC basketball officials.

[hogsanity]

Frick SEC basketball officials.

Now if only there were such a thing as "SEC" officials.

[Little Lady Back]

I find it ironic that after Dickie V lambasted the Hogs for a flagrant foul in the KY game that now HIS team is called for a flagrant call in the final minute.  Wonder what he's got to say about that.  Agree, we would have won without the call, but it made the final minute go by a little bit easier.

Karma...

[Tejano Jawg]

Well, we went through the whole game to that point feeling like the officiating was touchy on their end, no-blood-no-foul on our end.

At first, that's why I was surprised they made the call in the first place, although, it did take the review to up it to an F1.

They sure did benefit from plenty of touch fouls when they were going to the basket, +1s, etc. We'd make a layup and get pushed into photographers' row with no call.

[PorkRinds]

well, the consistent call there is a foul and Barford to the line. Everyone knows in the last minute the team behind is fouling intentionally, not playing the ball, but it is CONSISTENTLY not called a f1.

You're in every thread defending he refs when it's negative towards the hogs. Now that it went against the other team you're defending the refs. So transparent.

[alohawg]

Really? Did no one see how much body contact there was on the MK block, with no call? If they were being touchy feely, they would certainly have called MK with the body on that one.

Listen hoginsanity.........

[PossumFan]

A similar play happens at the end of 9 out of 10 games without a flagrant called.

This is not even close to being true.

[niels_boar]

Here's the rule from the rulebook:

Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that
is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely
on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;

It was a flagrant I whether Barford tripped or not.  Young got called for one at Ole Miss for barely grabbing the shorts of a Reb on a breakaway. Absolutely correct.

[BrooklynRoss]

Here's the rule from the rulebook:

Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that
is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely
on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;

It was a flagrant I whether Barford tripped or not.  Young got called for one at Ole Miss for barely grabbing the shorts of a Reb on a breakaway. Absolutely correct.

+ All the internet points.

[sowmonella]

All over. Next.