Hearn's hard foul on Dev

[LawVHawk]

Anyone else think that could have led to an ejection? It certainly was a flagrant 1 foul (loved how it appeared he couldn't even believe that, or perhaps he was just expressing frustration that no foul was called when Marble stole the ball). But the way he continued to ride Dev out of bounds in a way that caused Dev to fall awkwardly on the floor, potentially injuring his hand/wrist/arm, regardless of whether that was his intent, could have raised it to a flagrant 2 foul. I will withhold my opinion on whether it did until HN's resident basketball official and rules expert, Duffmod, weighs in.

From an NCAA.com release in May 2011 discussing the recommended rules changes:

...An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be a player who swings an elbow and makes 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...

...An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be a player who swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.

 

[ibahawkeye]

Correct call... nowhere near deserving an ejection.

 

[ssckelley]

I have no problems with that call. I really don't have much complaints in how the game was called yesterday, they missed a few but it went both ways.

 

[SteveL]

Correct call... nowhere near deserving an ejection.

It was intentional foul. If he had grabbed him around neck or higher, it would have been flagrant. Grabbing a player around waist and letting him go is not a flagrant foul.

 

[FCAS]

Grabbing a player around waist and letting him go is not a flagrant foul.

It was last night

 

[Section136]

It was intentional foul. If he had grabbed him around neck or higher, it would have been flagrant. Grabbing a player around waist and letting him go is not a flagrant foul.

No such thing as an intentional foul anymore, I believe.

Just flagrant 1 and flagrant 2.

 

[LawVHawk]

It was intentional foul. If he had grabbed him around neck or higher, it would have been flagrant. Grabbing a player around waist and letting him go is not a flagrant foul.

Per the rules change made in May 2011, there is no longer a foul called "intentional." If it is more severe than a "common" foul, it is either a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2.

Rules committee recommends change - NCAA.com

Fouls language

In other action, the committee changed the nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a “common” foul.

The terms “Flagrant 1” and “Flagrant 2” will now be used in these situations. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.

An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be a player who swings an elbow and makes 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.

“We want to be clear on the language so no one is confused,” Brey said. “The reason we used intentional last year was to increase the penalty. It didn’t have anything to do with intent.”

An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be a player who swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.

 

[storminspank]

No ejection, not close enough to warrant it.

I still can't believe Hearn was upset at the call. He made no play at the ball and wrapped him up from behind. Basically the definition of a flagrant 1.

 

[WindsorHawk]

No ejection, not close enough to warrant it.

I still can't believe Hearn was upset at the call. He made no play at the ball and wrapped him up from behind. Basically the definition of a flagrant 1.

This.

 

[SteveL]

Thanks for updating me on rule change terminology. I guess I havent been paying attention.

 

[LawVHawk]

No ejection, not close enough to warrant it.

I still can't believe Hearn was upset at the call. He made no play at the ball and wrapped him up from behind. Basically the definition of a flagrant 1.

Clearly a frustration foul ... after the multiple TV replays I wondered if he was more upset that a foul wasn't called on Dev for the steal near mid-court.

 

[LawVHawk]

Thanks for updating me on rule change terminology. I guess I havent been paying attention.

Only going by what I found on the interwebz -- always reliable source, isn't it? We need HN's resident basketball rules editor to weigh in.

 

[jacknicholson]

There was a lot of dirty play by NW last night. Josh having his eye scraped was just one incident. They were trying to hurt the team. That is also one reason I was pleased to see Woody toss a NW player on the floor under the basket with force......

We will have to play rough and tough tonight.....

 

[DexterMorgan]

Correct call... nowhere near deserving an ejection.

this

 

[okeefe4prez]

Flush it, boys. Time to move on. Focus on Sparty.

GO HAWKS!!!!

 

[eveningnewsteam]

I was behind the NW bench last night and Carmody goes to Hearn "What the hell are you complaining about?". Pretty funny exchange between Carmody and Mccaffery last night when May got called for a foul on that block shot. Mccaffery is screaming saying its a terrible call. With the official who called the foul standing right next to Carmody, he stands up and yells down to Mccaffery "I agree, that was a terrible call!". Fran yells back "I agree!"

 

[OUTofTOWNHAWK]

Well he did make himself look like an idiot on national tv so hes got that going.

 

[LawVHawk]

I was behind the NW bench last night and Carmody goes to Hearn "What the hell are you complaining about?". Pretty funny exchange between Carmody and Mccaffery last night when May got called for a foul on that block shot. Mccaffery is screaming saying its a terrible call. With the official who called the foul standing right next to Carmody, he stands up and yells down to Mccaffery "I agree, that was a terrible call!". Fran yells back "I agree!"

Srsly? Good stuff!

 

[volhawk50]

It was intentional foul. If he had grabbed him around neck or higher, it would have been flagrant. Grabbing a player around waist and letting him go is not a flagrant foul.

That's part of the definition of flagrant foul (intentional foul no longer exists, by the way). Hearn's play did not resemble a basketball play or a play at the ball in any way. If it had been more violent, it could've been flagrant 2 and ejection, but it wasn't. It was exactly the right call, and thus Reg's reaction was hilarious.

 

[LawVHawk]

That's part of the definition of flagrant foul (intentional foul no longer exists, by the way). Hearn's play did not resemble a basketball play or a play at the ball in any way. If it had been more violent, it could've been flagrant 2 and ejection, but it wasn't. It was exactly the right call, and thus Reg's reaction was hilarious.

I would agree with this if Hearn had let up on Dev after he had stopped the shot from behind and they had gone a short distance over the line. But he did not let up until they had gone well past the line and past the cheerleaders, and only to the point Dev started to fall onto his hand/wrist. You have to remember his arm movement is being restricted by the bear-hug Hearn put on him, so harder to regain balance or to get his arms out to break his fall. That's why I think a case could be made that this was more than a Flagrant 1. But, again, I know **** about officiating and await the verdict of HN's resident rule book interpreter.