Cole's "flagrant," Cartwright's "intentional"

[DuffMan]

DuffMan, you are so wrong on the call against Cole. You quoted the correct rule, but the officials missed the call completely. I dare you to watch the replay and tell anyone that you honestly believe that Cole's elbows were not rotating towards the basket simply because that was the direction he was pivoting. I can't believe you even had the courage to post this. If Cole had intentionally elbowed this guy, he would still be horizontal. You should never post on the board again!

The reason why he was pivoting or swinging his elbows is immaterial and has absolutely no bearing in the interpretation of the rule.

 

[EddyP]

This. The "speed" of rotation referred to in the rule refers to speed of the elbow relative to the rest of othe body. If you watch the play Coles elbows were slightly ahead of his shoulders, which were slightly ahead of his hips, which were slightly ahead of his feet. By definition his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body. Actually it's pretty impossible for that NOT to happen when you turn and pivot with the ball held above you head (try it at home or in your office).

If you guys have any beef it's with the rules commitie. The game officials did nothing more than enforce the rules that govern the college game perfectly in that situation.

I just tried it and caught my boss right below the eye. He called it flagrant and I got ejected. Thanks.

 

[DuffMan]

I just tried it and caught my boss right below the eye. He called it flagrant and I got ejected. Thanks.

if I didn't hate you an everything you stand for I would laugh at that

 

[sioux34]

I got knocked out cold in practice once by one of my college team mates. I was behind him in the post, he had the ball below his chin with his elbows out, when he pivoted to shoot a hook in the lane, his elbow caught me right in the temple, and I went down like a ton of bricks. This was before the rule change, but I still don't think he should have gotten a foul on that move, intentional or otherwise.

 

[tweeterhawk]

You guys need to make sure you have the new rule that was added in the spring of 2010. If you make contact, they go to a review and it will be deemed either intentional or flagrant.

Intentional is 2 shots and ball.
Flagrant is 2 shot and ball and player ejected.

This. It looked like the refs explained this to Fran and the staff, and the staff then explained it to Jarryd. I was worried when he went to the bench after the foul that possibly he had been ejected, but apparently it was to give him a breather while Green also was off the floor.

 

[EddyP]

if I didn't hate you an everything you stand for I would laugh at that

Get real, no one hates me. If we still had rep I would be up to about 18 squares by now. Plus I know it isn't possible as tolerant as you libs are to hate anyone.

 

[storminspank]

It's the same rule that impacted Matt Gatens' when he connected on an elbow earlier in the year.

The lesser of the fouls is "intentional" - that's what both Jarryd and Matt got in their instances.
The bigger one is "flagrant" - basically an elbow that is delivered with intent and malice.

Matt said after the game he was a bit nervous when they went to the monitor because even though he didn't mean anything, the stripes can say he meant to inflict pain on the elbow and he would have been tossed.

And just to clarify for everyone - if someone makes contact with the elbow, after the play is over, the refs can go to the replay to decide on a foul. If contact is made, they will, in the least, call an intentional. It's the new rule for 2010-11 whether people like it or not. It is meant to protect players and to stop players from raising their elbows.

So, yes, the correct call was made in Jarryd's case whether he meant to or not. But the Cartwright foul was weak.

 

[sportstalent]

My immediate reaction to the Cole foul was the rule needs to seriously be looked at, too many times a defensive player leans in and creates the contact. If the law of verticality is suppose to pertain when distinguishing an offensive foul, it should be applied in the same capacity in these cases.
Immediate reaction to Cartwright was it was a dumb foul and was called correctly, he made zero effort to even sell he was going for the ball.

 

[HaydensHawk]

It's the same rule that impacted Matt Gatens' when he connected on an elbow earlier in the year.

The lesser of the fouls is "intentional" - that's what both Jarryd and Matt got in their instances.
The bigger one is "flagrant" - basically an elbow that is delivered with intent and malice.

Matt said after the game he was a bit nervous when they went to the monitor because even though he didn't mean anything, the stripes can say he meant to inflict pain on the elbow and he would have been tossed.

And just to clarify for everyone - if someone makes contact with the elbow, after the play is over, the refs can go to the replay to decide on a foul. If contact is made, they will, in the least, call an intentional. It's the new rule for 2010-11 whether people like it or not. It is meant to protect players and to stop players from raising their elbows.

So, yes, the correct call was made in Jarryd's case whether he meant to or not. But the Cartwright foul was weak.

Matt's elbow was rotating and looked intentional.

Jaryd's elboy was NOT in rotation when the contact was made. Jaryd's whole body was moving toward the basket with his elbow in a fixed position... This was a BAD call. Look at it again...

 

[Hawkstrat]

If I was a coach, I'd tell my players to headbutt any elbow they see above a players shoulder.


I think it would work well.

 

[deanvogs]

This. The "speed" of rotation referred to in the rule refers to speed of the elbow relative to the rest of othe body. If you watch the play Coles elbows were slightly ahead of his shoulders, which were slightly ahead of his hips, which were slightly ahead of his feet. By definition his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body. Actually it's pretty impossible for that NOT to happen when you turn and pivot with the ball held above you head (try it at home or in your office).

If you guys have any beef it's with the rules commitie. The game officials did nothing more than enforce the rules that govern the college game perfectly in that situation.

Stand up, hold a BB over your head, and make a 180 degree turn as if you are facing up to the basket. When you face up to the basket, the fist things you do is turn your head, then which leads to your shoulders and arms turning, followed by the hips and lower body. It is simply the way the body works Duff. It starts up high with the head, and is followed throughout the rest of the body.

The only way this isn't the case is if you are going to use half you body to shield your shot, and not fully rotate toward the basket, and attempt more of a half hook, or baby hook.

I see this more a judgement call than set in stone Duff. There is almost no physical way that you start your body rotation with the lower half of your body. ALMOST every face up move to the basket is started with the head turn, then upper body, followed CLOSELY by the lower body. Even if you rotated them perfectly in unison, it would still have the illusion of the elbows being ahead of the body, as they will be typically sticking out from the body.

Unless they are basically trying to say that every contact to someones head with elbows is an automatic intentional foul. If they don't leave it up to some interpretation of the official, then that is basically what you are telling us.

 

[tweeterhawk]

If I was a coach, I'd tell my players to headbutt any elbow they see above a players shoulder.


I think it would work well.

Don't think that Izzo (and others) don't coach this. I thought the MSU player went down about as fast as an Italian soccer player.

 

[sodakhawkeye]

Is this new rule only in the college game, or is it also called that way in high school?

 

[EddyP]

Stand up, hold a BB over your head, and make a 180 degree turn as if you are facing up to the basket. When you face up to the basket, the fist things you do is turn your head, then which leads to your shoulders and arms turning, followed by the hips and lower body. It is simply the way the body works Duff. It starts up high with the head, and is followed throughout the rest of the body.

The only way this isn't the case is if you are going to use half you body to shield your shot, and not fully rotate toward the basket, and attempt more of a half hook, or baby hook.

I see this more a judgement call than set in stone Duff. There is almost no physical way that you start your body rotation with the lower half of your body. ALMOST every face up move to the basket is started with the head turn, then upper body, followed CLOSELY by the lower body. Even if you rotated them perfectly in unison, it would still have the illusion of the elbows being ahead of the body, as they will be typically sticking out from the body.

Unless they are basically trying to say that every contact to someones head with elbows is an automatic intentional foul. If they don't leave it up to some interpretation of the official, then that is basically what you are telling us.

That is pretty much what I get out of it. But the key is to make sure you go to the floor so the ref KNOWS you are hurt and then can go to the monitor to confirm that he missed the call and correct it.

 

[BALDIES7980]

It's the same rule that impacted Matt Gatens' when he connected on an elbow earlier in the year.

The lesser of the fouls is "intentional" - that's what both Jarryd and Matt got in their instances.
The bigger one is "flagrant" - basically an elbow that is delivered with intent and malice.

Matt said after the game he was a bit nervous when they went to the monitor because even though he didn't mean anything, the stripes can say he meant to inflict pain on the elbow and he would have been tossed.

And just to clarify for everyone - if someone makes contact with the elbow, after the play is over, the refs can go to the replay to decide on a foul. If contact is made, they will, in the least, call an intentional. It's the new rule for 2010-11 whether people like it or not. It is meant to protect players and to stop players from raising their elbows.

So, yes, the correct call was made in Jarryd's case whether he meant to or not. But the Cartwright foul was weak.

I understand the rules and understand the intent but like any other rule the stripes need to work alot harder on getting on the same page.
The whole of College basketball has gotten ridiculous and it ruins the game.