intentional/flagrant foul revisited

[EddyP]

Ok, so I am watching the Mizzou/KU game tonight and a couple of guys get tangled up underneath the basket. The KU guy gives the Mizzou guy a shot to the face that was clearly intentional and more like a forearm and not an elbow. The Mizzou guy wasn't hurt and didn't go to the ground. They went to the monitor and determined it was an intentional foul and not flagrant. So I guess my question is, is it only when the other player gets hurt that it is flagrant? It was clear that it was intentional. By contrast the Cole foul the other night clearly was not. So here you have two shots to the face, one was intentional and one was not and they were both ruled intentional fouls. The Mizzou/KU foul had nothing to do with an elbow rotating faster than the body nonsense, it was just a cheap shot to the face where the other player wasn't seriously hurt. Basically I still think the Cole foul was b.s.

 

[Clonehomer]

The rule in which Cole got the foul called is a strict by the book rule. It does not give the refs any judgement in the call. If the player hits another with an elbow rotating faster than his body then it is an intentional foul regardless of the situation.

An intentional foul can also be called in other instances that are not so clearly defined in the rules. The refs in these cases are allowed judgement calls that they can decide whether to call it or not.

As far as flagrant, that is also up to the refs for anything up to throwing a punch. I think that in this case that's why they made the point of saying it wasn't flagrant because the player didn't actually throw a punch. That would have automatically resulted in a flagrant foul and ejection.

 

[DuffMan]

Basically I still think the Cole foul was b.s.

You are in select company here.

There are people who walk around believing the Holocaust didn't happen.
There are people who walk around believing 911 was perpetrated by our government.
There are people who walk around believing the earth is 5,000 years old.
There are people who walk around believing dubbya stole the white house from Gore.
There are people who walk around believing aliens abducted them and did "naughty touches" to them.
There are people who walk around believing they are fire trucks.

Those people are in select company too.

 

[BALDIES7980]

You are in select company here.

There are people who walk around believing the Holocaust didn't happen.
There are people who walk around believing 911 was perpetrated by our government.
There are people who walk around believing the earth is 5,000 years old.
There are people who walk around believing dubbya stole the white house from Gore.
There are people who walk around believing aliens abducted them and did "naughty touches" to them.
There are people who walk around believing they are fire trucks.

Those people are in select company too.

Duff he is not in select company. It was a poor call. Maybe it was by the book but it was not a good call. There are plenty times that this kind of call is relevant but this was not. I watched the PSU/Mich replay yesterday and at the end on the half the Mich. big man face slapped the PSU guy trying to go up with the rebound -result no foul of any kind.It was very clear and probably should have been flagrant.
Cole caught his guy with the elbow but its pretty easy to see he wasn't trying to he just happened to. Its just another installment why its so important for Refs to have their head out and be at a higher plane in terms of their performance and commitment to consistentcy.

 

[sioux34]

As I pointed out in the other thread, you can't hit someone with your elbow unless your elbow is moving faster than your body. It is simple physics. The rule is poorly written.

 

[DuffMan]

Duff he is not in select company. It was a poor call.... Its just another installment why its so important for Refs to have their head out and be at a higher plane in terms of their performance and commitment to consistentcy.

Dear God, it's not a poor call. It might be a poor rule but it's not a poor call. This rule is no different than the out of bounds rule. If a player steps out of bounds but didn't mean to is it OK for the officals to look the other way?

Seriously guys don't you realize how rediculous you look complaining about the officials for doing thier jobs exactly as they had been instructed to do? You realize if they DON'T make this call they get a poor grade from the group that evaluates officials and ultimately determins how many games they work (if any).

 

[Bob]

Cole caught his guy with the elbow but its pretty easy to see he wasn't trying to he just happened to. Its just another installment why its so important for Refs to have their head out and be at a higher plane in terms of their performance and commitment to consistentcy.

The refs have been consistently following the NCAA's interpretation of the rule all season. If a player tries to create space with his elbow, he will be called for an intentional foul. The NCAA does not care whether the player intended to hurt anyone. The NCAA wants to improve player safety by stopping players from creating space with their elbows at all. Soon enough, coaches will make it clear to their players that they can't do it anymore, and it will stop.

 

[DuffMan]

As I pointed out in the other thread, you can't hit someone with your elbow unless your elbow is moving faster than your body. It is simple physics. The rule is poorly written.

The first part of your statement is very true. The second part is debatable, but I'd argue the rule is well written and serves the purpose very well.

It was their intent to phrase the rule in such a way that the offensive player is always responsible for elbow to head contact on a defender when he is swinging his elbows. It serves this purpose very well.

The two primary things this was designed to curb was a player with the ball swinging his elbows trying to clear a rebound and perimiter players who would try and create space between them and tight man to man defense by swining thier elbows and rotating their upper body. The rule does exactly that.

 

[tweeterhawk]

Cole's foul was a very strict (and IMHO very weak) application of a poorly-written rule on the books. It is Exhibit A in the argument about why the rule needs to be revisited. Cole had no intention -- none, whatsoever -- of elbowing the MSU player in the face. If you're going to do that, you bend your elbow far more to create a point that can then inflict more focused damage.

Cole had both arms up, securing the ball tightly in his hands, as he moved between two defenders to go to the basket. There was contact between the middle part of his upraised arm and the defender's face. The MSU defender sold the contact well, falling down and remaining down until play was stopped. (I don't recall seeing anyone having to wipe blood off the floor or the MSU player needing stitches, by the way.)

Here's the truly BS part of it: no foul was called at the time and the game was ready to move on until the refs stopped for the player on the floor and Izzo complained, and the refs decided to take a look at it on the monitor. In essence they were looking for something picky that all three of them had missed in the run of real play.

If the intent of the rule as written is to punish aggressive moves to the basket as happened in Cole's case, referees are going to need to be re-educated on the rule and the men's game is suddenly going to look a lot more like the women's game.

The Cole foul was just a terrible application of a bad rule.

 

[BALDIES7980]

The refs have been consistently following the NCAA's interpretation of the rule all season. If a player tries to create space with his elbow, he will be called for an intentional foul. The NCAA does not care whether the player intended to hurt anyone. The NCAA wants to improve player safety by stopping players from creating space with their elbows at all. Soon enough, coaches will make it clear to their players that they can't do it anymore, and it will stop.

No they won't stop this problem because its part of the game. Just like when they targeted hand checking one year. They will enforce it vigorously because its what they have to do to keep making the money and then the players will continue on BAU.
One would hope it would curb the malicious stuff that was and does happen(the true intention of the rule) but human nature is to push the limits of the rules all the time to get the adavantage and THAT my friend will never change.
IMO since they are allowed to view replay there should be a level of "incidental" as it does happen without cause or malice.
But in the end if your Refs are pushed to step up and follow the intention of ALL rules alot of the new rules and rules focuses would not be needed.

 

[DuffMan]

Cole's foul... was contact between the middle part of his upraised arm and the defender's face.

I've edited your post to take all the irrelvent stuff out. What remains is the only part that was factual or relevent to the situation.

 

[BALDIES7980]

Cole's foul was a very strict (and IMHO very weak) application of a poorly-written rule on the books. It is Exhibit A in the argument about why the rule needs to be revisited. Cole had no intention -- none, whatsoever -- of elbowing the MSU player in the face. If you're going to do that, you bend your elbow far more to create a point that can then inflict more focused damage.

Cole had both arms up, securing the ball tightly in his hands, as he moved between two defenders to go to the basket. There was contact between the middle part of his upraised arm and the defender's face. The MSU defender sold the contact well, falling down and remaining down until play was stopped. (I don't recall seeing anyone having to wipe blood off the floor or the MSU player needing stitches, by the way.)

Here's the truly BS part of it: no foul was called at the time and the game was ready to move on until the refs stopped for the player on the floor and Izzo complained, and the refs decided to take a look at it on the monitor. In essence they were looking for something picky that all three of them had missed in the run of real play.

If the intent of the rule as written is to punish aggressive moves to the basket as happened in Cole's case, referees are going to need to be re-educated on the rule and the men's game is suddenly going to look a lot more like the women's game.

The Cole foul was just a terrible application of a bad rule.

You know I'm really kind of torn on the issue because its important and I'd like to see this part of the game cleaned up but why is this such a point that it warrants a game stoppage? Why not stop the game and review a possible hand check on a critical drive to the basket at the end of a close game?
IMO it all rests of the Refs(as it should) they need to be expected to raise themselves to level of the game currently played and call it as such. IMO there is little need to keep adding rules to make their job even more difficult.

 

[DuffMan]

Again the officials are specifically directed to utilize video evidence in situations involving last second shots, 2 or 3, and intentional/flagarent fouls. Is it really hard to understand how they missed the contact live when it happened so fast?

To those of you complaining about the use of video replay, do you realize that it eliminates (or at minimum drastically reduces) the likelyhood that someone gets slapped with a false or unwarranted intentional/flagarant foul?

 

[BALDIES7980]

Again the officials are specifically directed to utilize video evidence in situations involving last second shots, 2 or 3, and intentional/flagarent fouls. Is it really hard to understand how they missed the contact live when it happened so fast?

To those of you complaining about the use of video replay, do you realize that it eliminates (or at minimum drastically reduces) the likelyhood that someone gets slapped with a false or unwarranted intentional/flagarant foul?

Duff , come on this is a reach at best and doesn't address the issue in the least.

 

[DuffMan]

Duff , come on this is a reach at best and doesn't address the issue in the least.

I was speaking to the folks complaining about the use of video replay in this matter. How would this be a reach and how does it not address the issue?

 

[BALDIES7980]

I was speaking to the folks complaining about the use of video replay in this matter. How would this be a reach and how does it not address the issue?

Why do these fouls warrant replay?Why not any that could be a game changing play like FB?
The elbow shot was a foul before why do we need a graduated penalty? As far as I knew if the ref felt that it was an intentional swing in the past he could throw the guy out. So why change it?
You have basically said well its the way the rule is written so it right. Most of rules has nothing to do with rules its more about interpretation based on someone trying to gain unfair advantage.
In this case Cole didn't do that.

 

[DuffMan]

Why do these fouls warrant replay?Why not any that could be a game changing play like FB?
The elbow shot was a foul before why do we need a graduated penalty? As far as I knew if the ref felt that it was an intentional swing in the past he could throw the guy out. So why change it?
You have basically said well its the way the rule is written so it right. Most of rules has nothing to do with rules its more about interpretation based on someone trying to gain unfair advantage.
In this case Cole didn't do that.

The body that governs the NCAA and oversees it's officials has directed it's officials to use video replay in the event of suspected elbow contact, suspected punches, to determine if a shot left the shooters hand prior to the clock hitting zero, and to determin 2 or 3 point goals. They realize that asking officials to judge intent with a high degree of accuracy solely from watching it live as it happens would likely result in incorrect calls being made. As such they direct them to use replay to increase thier chances of getting it right. Asking why the officials used the replay in that situation is akin to asking football officials why they review a play when a coach throws a challenge flag on the field. The answer in both case is "Because that's the rule".

The NCAA wanted to put a halt to players with the ball using thier elbows to create space. They implimented the graduated rule (intentional/flagarant) specifically so they could penalize a player who hits someone with his elbow with intent differently from one who does so without intent. The rule now both penalizes offensive players who strike a defending players head with swinging elbows while allowing for different punishments based on intent.

Cole did gain an unfair advantage because he used his elbows to creat space to make that shot. The defender's head has every right to occupy that space. The burden is on the offensive player to be able to make his move to the basket without dislodging the defense, something Cole did not do.

"I didn't mean to" has never been a valid excuse for commiting a foul or a violation, why would it be in this case?

 

[EddyP]

The rule in which Cole got the foul called is a strict by the book rule. It does not give the refs any judgement in the call. If the player hits another with an elbow rotating faster than his body then it is an intentional foul regardless of the situation.

An intentional foul can also be called in other instances that are not so clearly defined in the rules. The refs in these cases are allowed judgement calls that they can decide whether to call it or not.

As far as flagrant, that is also up to the refs for anything up to throwing a punch. I think that in this case that's why they made the point of saying it wasn't flagrant because the player didn't actually throw a punch. That would have automatically resulted in a flagrant foul and ejection.

The reason I brought up last night's foul is because a ref should be able to draw a distinction between intentional and non-intentional. If you all are telling me they can't because the way the rule is written then the rule needs to be changed. Cole was making a move to the basket and this guy from KU blatently gave the guy a shot to the face and both of them received the same call. That is not right. Now, if you want to make it just a regular foul on Cole that is one thing(although I still wouldn't agree with it), but to give them two shots and the ball is flat out ridiculous. I agree that the kid from KU should not have been booted but yeah it deserved two shots and the ball because it was a cheap shot and clearly much different then the Cole foul.

 

[biggs3]

As I pointed out in the other thread, you can't hit someone with your elbow unless your elbow is moving faster than your body. It is simple physics. The rule is poorly written.

True the rule is poorly written, first they need to define what "faster" means. If we assume it to mean "faster velocity" then we need to define if the are referring to angular velocity or linear velocity. The above is true if we assume linear velocity, since objects further out from a point in a circular plane will have greater linear velocity than those nearer the center. But, it seems in this case they need to clarify it as angular velocity (i.e. rpm). If the body is rotating about it's axis (waist) and the said elbow is rotating with the body, then they will have the same angular velocity. The infraction needs to occur if the elbow employs it's own independent pivot point (shoulder) and thus compounds upon the existing angular velocity of the body....thus triggering the infraction.

I'm sure this is what they mean, I'll forward it to the NCAA rules committee....they'll probably get right on updating the rule book.

(note, I haven't taken physics since college, about 8 yrs ago, so the above could be complete wind out my *** )

 

[DuffMan]

The term "faster" as it relates to this rule refers to the elbows speed relative to the rest of the body not linear speed.