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

tweeterhawk

tweeterhawk

Well-Known Member
When Jarryd elbowed Green in the face, it appeared the contact was purely accidental, the result of Jarryd raising his arms firmly holding the ball and taking a step towards the basket for a layup. It was not until Sir Hillary and his striped explorers reviewed the play that the "flagrant" foul was given.

Was surprised the call was made, especially after the review. For HN posters who officiate hoops, what was your take on it?

Also, thought the intentional foul on Cartwright was one of the weakest I have ever seen. No question it was a foul. But fouls that are far more clearly intended to stop a drive or temporarily stop the clock occur every night in D1 basketball that are never whistled as "intentional."

If what Bryce did -- basically reaching across the offensive player -- is now going to be viewed as "intentional," games are going to be far, far different. I was really surprised Fran didn't go off on that one.
 
Cole's foul has been called in many other NCAA games I've watched this season. It's a rule, and something officials have been instructed to watch for. It's a stupid rule, but a rule nonetheless. Regardless if contact was accidental, more often than not the officials will rule a foul. I believe the replay is used to verify the player indeed was contacted in the face or was just a "flop".

I don't know of anyone who likes the rule, but it is being enforced universally it appears.
 
The Cole play was absolutely correct.

The rule states that any time a players elbows rotate at a fast pace than the rest of thier body (which was the case) and contact is made with another player (with emphasis placed on contact made to the head or face) that it is an automatic intentional foul. This is regardless of intent. They are absolutely correct to use any video evidence for clarification on this matter. The KEY here is that his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body and contact was made, all else is irrelevant.

Had the player not went down it would have not likely resulted in an intentional foul as there would have been no TV stopage.

The intentional foul on Bryce was probably also correct, although this is more of a judgment issue. The official in his judgement ruled that the foul was not a legitimate attempt to steal the ball but rather an intentional act designed to stop a player with a "clear path" to the basket. This is 100% a judgement call and as such is certainly debatable but given the circumstances I'd say it was a reasonable call.

Remember on an intentional foul the degree of contact or "how hard" the foul was is of no significance.
 
DuffMan said:
The Cole play was absolutely correct.

The rule states that any time a players elbows rotate at a fast pace than the rest of thier body (which was the case) and contact is made with another player (with emphasis placed on contact made to the head or face) that it is an automatic intentional foul. This is regardless of intent. They are absolutely correct to use any video evidence for clarification on this matter. The KEY here is that his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body and contact was made, all else is irrelevant.

Had the player not went down it would have not likely resulted in an intentional foul as there would have been no TV stopage.

The intentional foul on Bryce was probably also correct, although this is more of a judgment issue. The official in his judgement ruled that the foul was not a legitimate attempt to steal the ball but rather an intentional act designed to stop a player with a "clear path" to the basket. This is 100% a judgement call and as such is certainly debatable but given the circumstances I'd say it was a reasonable call.

Remember on an intentional foul the degree of contact or "how hard" the foul was is of no significance.
Click to expand...

Going to call BS on that, because if that was a correct call there is going to be about 20-30 intentional fouls called a game from here on out...it was a weak and STUPID call by the ref.
 
DuffMan said:
The Cole play was absolutely correct.

The rule states that any time a players elbows rotate at a fast pace than the rest of thier body (which was the case) and contact is made with another player (with emphasis placed on contact made to the head or face) that it is an automatic intentional foul. This is regardless of intent. They are absolutely correct to use any video evidence for clarification on this matter. The KEY here is that his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body and contact was made, all else is irrelevant.

Had the player not went down it would have not likely resulted in an intentional foul as there would have been no TV stopage.
Click to expand...

Green certainly sold it well. :(


I am aware that gets coached, and not just by Tom Izzo.
 
TChawk said:
Going to call BS on that, because if that was a correct call there is going to be about 20-30 intentional fouls called a game from here on out...it was a weak and STUPID call by the ref.
Click to expand...

Actually it's the complete opposite of a "weak" call. It's a VERY difficult call to make during a game. It's one in which everything in you body says that's intentional, but it's hard to call it that because you like to have those be no doubters. Give the official credit, he made a very strong call and came up with it right away, there was no indecision.

I guarantee you Cartwright doesn't get that call if he doesn't wrap up or bear hug the offensive player in the end, that pretty much seals the deal. If Cartwrigh sticks his head and shoulders in front and dives for the ball and both players go flying, no intentional foul. He wrapped the guy up around the waste and it was ruled intentional, it's hard to argue that.
 
I think the Cartwright call was correct, I also think when Cole got intentionally fouled was correct too. And under the rules, Cole's elbow was probably an intentional as well. It is such a silly rule on something like that. The other strange thing was that the basket counted. I really didn't understand that. Was that because they didn't call the foul on the play but only after they reviewed it?
 
I thought Cartright's foul was intentional, but was surprised it was called as a foul like that usually isn't called intentional....have definately seen more intentional ones not called.
My question on the Cole foul is after he hit him in the face he had a wide open look at the basket and made the shot. They then looked at replay after that and decided to call the foul. Then how can the basket count if the foul was clearly before the shot and what got him the wide open look?
 
neiowahawk said:
I thought Cartright's foul was intentional, but was surprised it was called as a foul like that usually isn't called intentional....have definately seen more intentional ones not called.
My question on the Cole foul is after he hit him in the face he had a wide open look at the basket and made the shot. They then looked at replay after that and decided to call the foul. Then how can the basket count if the foul was clearly before the shot and what got him the wide open look?
Click to expand...

This was one of my questions, too. Perhaps Duffman or someone can clarify. According to the official play-by-play, six seconds elapsed between the time Cole made the basket and the foul was called. There was no stoppage after the basket until the officials noticed the MSU player down holding his cheek.

BTW, what's the correct terminology for these calls? Are both now called "intentional"? Is the term "flagrant" still used for fouls?
 
tweeterhawk said:
This was one of my questions, too. Perhaps Duffman or someone can clarify. According to the official play-by-play, six seconds elapsed between the time Cole made the basket and the foul was called. There was no stoppage after the basket until the officials noticed the MSU player down holding his cheek.

BTW, what's the correct terminology for these calls? Are both now called "intentional"? Is the term "flagrant" still used for fouls?
Click to expand...

I believe they are called "Intentional" by the NCAA. I don't know if the NCAA even has flagrant fouls any more.
The NBA calls them Flagrant and they have Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2. #2 immediately gets you ejected. Intentionals in NBA are the clear path to the basket fouls. It is all quite confusing.
 
DuffMan said:
The Cole play was absolutely correct.

The rule states that any time a players elbows rotate at a fast pace than the rest of thier body (which was the case) and contact is made with another player (with emphasis placed on contact made to the head or face) that it is an automatic intentional foul. This is regardless of intent. They are absolutely correct to use any video evidence for clarification on this matter. The KEY here is that his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body and contact was made, all else is irrelevant.

Had the player not went down it would have not likely resulted in an intentional foul as there would have been no TV stopage.

The intentional foul on Bryce was probably also correct, although this is more of a judgment issue. The official in his judgement ruled that the foul was not a legitimate attempt to steal the ball but rather an intentional act designed to stop a player with a "clear path" to the basket. This is 100% a judgement call and as such is certainly debatable but given the circumstances I'd say it was a reasonable call.

Remember on an intentional foul the degree of contact or "how hard" the foul was is of no significance.
Click to expand...


Here is why I DON'T think it was a flagrant foul. I'm taking your word that the rule states the players elbows rotate at a faster pace than the rest of the body. If so, he was facing up to the basket is all. He turned his whole body toward the basket, he didn't just swing his elbows. He put the ball over his head, faced the basket, and went up to shoot. I don't see how you can say we wasn't facing up to shoot as he shot the ball and made the basket.

I know it is up for interpretation. Just think in this case he was in a shooting motion, no elbows being throw around IMO....
 
The flagrant foul is alive and well in college basketball. Here is a clip from the rule book.

Flagrant personal foul, live ball. A flagrant personal foul shall be
a personal foul that involves severe contact with an opponent or
involves contact that is extreme in nature while the ball is live.
 
DuffMan said:
The Cole play was absolutely correct.

The rule states that any time a players elbows rotate at a fast pace than the rest of thier body (which was the case) and contact is made with another player (with emphasis placed on contact made to the head or face) that it is an automatic intentional foul. This is regardless of intent. They are absolutely correct to use any video evidence for clarification on this matter. The KEY here is that his elbows were rotating at a faster pace than the rest of his body and contact was made, all else is irrelevant.

Had the player not went down it would have not likely resulted in an intentional foul as there would have been no TV stopage.

The intentional foul on Bryce was probably also correct, although this is more of a judgment issue. The official in his judgement ruled that the foul was not a legitimate attempt to steal the ball but rather an intentional act designed to stop a player with a "clear path" to the basket. This is 100% a judgement call and as such is certainly debatable but given the circumstances I'd say it was a reasonable call.

Remember on an intentional foul the degree of contact or "how hard" the foul was is of no significance.
Click to expand...

Both calls were horrible. Cole was rotating his elbow as he was turning to make a move to the basket. So you are saying they called it an intentional foul because the kid was hurt? That makes a lot of sense. Why is it correct to use video to "clarify"? Why not just review every call to clarify. Aren't all calls made "judgement" calls?
 
I thought it was more of his forearm than an elbow too, still don't know how the basket can count or how they can call a foul when they didn't blow the whistle until the guy had laid on the floor for a while and then looking at video. I was also confused on the first posession, how that could've been a backcourt violation. Gatens had touched the ball, then 2 MSU players touched it, but the first guy that touched it didn't have posession of it. I thought it was a very poorly officiated game, even though alot of the early questionable calls went Iowa's way. Players should obviously lay on the floor if they get fouled and nothing is called so that they stop play and go look at the replay.
 
They didn't wipe off the points because they are not allowed to use replay to take off points other than shot clock or end of game situations. Even though they could use replay to determine if an intentional foul was commited they couldn't go back and wipe away the points because that is not an allowable use of replay.

The terminology they use would be an "intentional foul". The difference between intentional and flagarant is flagrant is defined as a savage act and the player must be ejected from the contest.

Again it has nothing to do with intent (despite the name), there are only two factors that matter 1) Your elbows must be rotating faster than the rest of your body and 2) contact must be made. If you watch the replay you will notice his elbows were leading his turn and they were rotating faster than the rest of his body (they got there before his shoulders, which got there before his hips and feet).

This situation is very similar to when a player gets a defensive rebound and turns to outlet the ball. If his elbows are leading, and contact is made (especially to the head/face) of a defender, it's going to be an intentional foul every time.
There really isn't any debate on the Cole foul. If you don't like it complain to the rules commitie, the officials called it to the absolute letter of the law.
 
neiowahawk said:
I thought it was more of his forearm than an elbow too, still don't know how the basket can count or how they can call a foul when they didn't blow the whistle until the guy had laid on the floor for a while and then looking at video. I was also confused on the first posession, how that could've been a backcourt violation. Gatens had touched the ball, then 2 MSU players touched it, but the first guy that touched it didn't have posession of it. I thought it was a very poorly officiated game, even though alot of the early questionable calls went Iowa's way. Players should obviously lay on the floor if they get fouled and nothing is called so that they stop play and go look at the replay.
Click to expand...

The backcourt violation was called because the officials ruled that MSU lost team controll of the ball without being touched by the defense (usually referred to as an interrupted dribble). Even though an Iowa player touched the ball in the scramble it was still a backcourt violation because MSU was the first team to touch it in the back court while the ball still had front court status. It would not have been a back court had A) an Iowa player been responsible for the loss of controll or B) Had Iowa gained team team controll at any point.

In short if Iowa had poked that ball away they caused the loose ball and no backcourt violation.

Because MSU dribbled off thier own foot it they can't be the first to touch it if the ball ends up in the back court due to the scramble.
 
I could be mistaken, but I thought the PA man said the intentional foul was called on Brommer rather than Cartright. That would make more sense because Brommer was grabbing the player from behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top