Flagrant Foul Rule

[Cootface]

I think we are all in agreement this is the dumbest rule ever - between Cooney tonight and even Triche vs Montana last year. It gets me wondering why this was ever brought into existence?

What coach/ref saw that and said "you know what? I need to protect the defender that decides he is going to dry hump an offensive player's left leg outside the three point line."

Seriously, though. Why did they make a rule to protect people who get hit in the mouth while committing fouls? I've yet to see one of those reviews where you don't say to yourself "how are they not calling that guy for a defensive foul?"

 

[Millhouse]

Probably an overreaction to some random injury

 

[Millhouse]

And Cooney was fouled first!

 

[orangehomer]

the problem isn't the rule itself, its that the refs went fishing to find a foul and it didn't actually meet the criteria of the rule.

 

[midloviking]

And Cooney was fouled first!

That dude was humping Cooney.

 

[Millhouse]

That dude was humping Cooney.

Gbinijes shoe came off because the floor was sticky

 

[SWC75]

I think intent should be necessary for a foul to be flagrant.

 

[SWC75]

I think intent should be necessary for a foul to be flagrant.

 

[jncuse]

With concussions such a major aspect in all sports you absolutely need a rule against reckless plays that result in head shots... even if the play is totally accidental. I think the current rule needs some major tweaking re. interpretation, but I fear how the refs will interpret this rule if it requires judgment.

I think it can be argued it is just as reckless for a defensive player to throw himself into a position where he is exposed to a head shot. To me if the player puts himself within a certain distance of the player and a head shot occurs, perhaps he should be called for a foul as well.

 

[jncuse]

I think intent should be necessary for a foul to be flagrant.

I disagree. We are dealing with head shots and recklessness has to be dealt with sternly.

The question is though -- is what Cooney did tonight really reckless?

 

[Cootface]

With concussions such a major aspect in all sports you absolutely need a rule against reckless plays that result in head shots... even if the play is totally accidental. I think the current rule needs some major tweaking re. interpretation, but I fear how the refs will interpret this rule if it requires judgment. I think it can be argued it is just as reckless for a defensive player to throw himself into a position where he is exposed to a head shot. To me if the player puts himself within a certain distance of the player and a head shot occurs, perhaps he should be called for a foul as well.

This is pretty much my point. You are worried about injuries but are rewarding someone who creates an injurious situation. I would argue you would have far fewer injuries by saying "you stick your face in there and you're not only getting a concussion, but we will also call you for a retroactive foul" would make for far fewer injuries because people would stop dry humping players!

 

[orangehomer]

I disagree. We are dealing with head shots and recklessness has to be dealt with sternly.

The question is though -- is what Cooney did tonight really reckless?

the offensive player has to have the right to some amount of space, otherwise what can he do? it was a terrible, game changing call.

 

[jncuse]

the offensive player has to have the right to some amount of space, otherwise what can he do? it was a terrible, game changing call.

I disagree on it being a terrible call. It's a terrible rule interpretation that the refs are told to follow.

But I agree with your point, "what could Cooney do". It was not reckless.

Some accident could be deemedreckless. For example, when a rebounder swings his elbows really wide after a rebound.

 

[orangehomer]

I disagree on it being a terrible call. It's a terrible rule interpretation that the refs are told to follow.

But I agree with your point, "what could Cooney do". It was not reckless.

Some accident could be deemedreckless. For example, when a rebounder swings his elbows really wide after a rebound.

I disagree, there is room in the rule to determine if it was a normal basketball play, which it was considering the defender was in cooneys mix. it was a bad call, and the refs went searching for it.

 

[LetMeIn]

I think intent should be necessary for a foul to be flagrant.

Yesterday on TBS they had John Adams the NCAA head of officiating on to discuss the flagrant foul rules and to review samples.
One of the interesting things he said is that the reason they changed the name of the foul from "intentional" to "flagrant" is because it was not fair to ask referees to divine intent.

The other interesting thing he talked about was a situation very similar to what happened to Cooney tonight. They showed the clip of an Albany defender crowding Patric Young to the point it was impossible for him to move and then getting elbowed. He said it was absolutely the correct call, and that there is no requirement at all for the defensive player to allow space for the offensive player to move. The offensive player is responsible for all of his actions once he has the ball.

Having said all that, I completely agree that this rule needs to be changed. Both Cooney tonight and an SLU player in the Loisville game had flargrant 1s called on the them while they were being fouled. In the Lousiville game Luke Hancock was climbing over the players back and hanging on his shoulder while the offensive player was trying to catch the ball. The flagrant foul was called after the whistle had already blown. In both cases the defensive team was rewarded with two shots and the ball. As the rule stands right now, it's the equivalent of the NFL instituting a 15-yard penalty on the offense because the ball carrier allowed the defender to spear him.

If the NCAA is going to keep this rule in place, which I think they should, they need to make to major alterations:

1. They need to change the rules to require the defender to give the offensive player space to make a move.
   
2. Officials need to be able to at the very least call a double foul when they go to the monitor, or in situations like Cooney's they need to have some sort of lesser violation they can call similar to an illegal defense in NBA where the defense gets one free throw, but the offense gets the ball back.

 

[Cootface]

Yesterday on TBS they had John Adams the NCAA head of officiating on to discuss the flagrant foul rules and to review samples. One of the interesting things he said is that the reason they changed the name of the foul from "intentional" to "flagrant" is because it was not fair to ask referees to divine intent. The other interesting thing he talked about was a situation very similar to what happened to Cooney tonight. They showed the clip of an Albany defender crowding Patric Young to the point it was impossible for him to move and then getting elbowed. He said it was absolutely the correct call, and that there is no requirement at all for the defensive player to allow space for the offensive player to move. The offensive player is responsible for all of his actions once he has the ball. Having said all that, I completely agree that this rule needs to be changed. Both Cooney tonight and an SLU player in the Loisville game had flargrant 1s called on the them while they were being fouled. In the Lousiville game Luke Hancock was climbing over the players back and hanging on his shoulder while the offensive player was trying to catch the ball. The flagrant foul was called after the whistle had already blown. In both cases the defensive team was rewarded with two shots and the ball. As the rule stands right now, it's the equivalent of the NFL instituting a 15-yard penalty on the offense because the ball carrier allowed the defender to spear him. If the NCAA is going to keep this rule in place, which I think they should, they need to make to major alterations: [*]They need to change the rules to require the defender to give the offensive player space to make a move. [*]Officials need to be able to at the very least call a double foul when they go to the monitor, or in situations like Cooney's they need to have some sort of lesser violation they can call similar to an illegal defense in NBA where the defense gets one free throw, but the offense gets the ball back.

I agree to a certain extent. Where I diverge is the notion that cooney did anything to warrant a free throw. He was being fouled. End of story.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I listened yesterday morning to the head of College basketball officials explain the rule interpretation of the flagrant foul rule. He was asked a number of excellent questions. He said that there is no longer any determination made for "intent". He said coaches complaining about the new rules also complained that referees couldn't possibly know their players intent and were unhappy about "intentional" fouls. He pretty well said that there is no longer any grey area in deciding whether an act is a flagrant 1 foul. Any contact above the neck will be called a flagrant 1. He said a flagrant 2 foul requires excessive contact and one of the analysts questioning him asked wouldn't it be necessary in order to determine "excessive" also require judging intent? He admitted it could but normally the severity of the impact and subsequent injury defines whether it's excessive and a flagrant 2.

He was asked about the right of an offensive player to space. He said the NBA has the concept of space for players but the NCAA doesn't recognize it. I didn't know this. It just sounded like refs no longer have any leeway if a a player makes contact above the shoulders with an elbow- it's a flagrant 1.

I thought Cooney was fouled beforehand and swinging the ball was a reaction in order to secure the ball. Seeing it live I didn't get a replay. In fact it seemed like they checked the monitor well after the play occurred.Most people around me had no idea what they were even checking the monitor for. They hadn't even noticed the play. I wondered if there is a time limit on how much time elapses after the contact is supposedly made and who told them to check the monitor. It was in front of the SU bench and pretty out of sight from the Dayton bench.

Just saw LetMeIn's post - guess we saw the same show.

 

[Cowtown]

I think intent should be necessary for a foul to be flagrant.

No offense to you, venerable one, but how does one quantify intent adequately enough to write it into a rule book? I mean really, SWC. Lawyers have enough trouble proving it over seveeral days in a court of law, let alon over several seconds on a court of basketball based (at least theoretically) on transitional play. I'm getting sick and tired of the refs blowing the whistles and running to the table to decide what the hell the call was.

 

[SaltLakeOrange]

I disagree. We are dealing with head shots and recklessness has to be dealt with sternly.

The question is though -- is what Cooney did tonight really reckless?

No it wasn't...not even close...smh!

 

[CuyahogaCuse]

No it wasn't...not even close...smh!

Watch the replay again. I watched it every time they showed it, and I'm not actually convinced Cooney made contact with the defender, who seemed cast out of The Matrix, with the quick move to avoid the oncoming elbow.

Intent shouldn't be the discussion point here. The reality is I'm not even sure an offensive foul was committed.

 

[orangeinohio]

I don't think the defender had control of his body. He flew over to cover Cooney and his momentum brought him less than a foot away from Cooney.
That's the part that bothers me.

 

[Kevind13]

Unless they allow the offensive player to have "space" this will never change. College basketball is getting so hard to watch these days. teams have such a hard time scoring because they still allow to much contact. As bad as that gonzaga/okie St game was at least they called fouls. If that's what it takes to change it I am all for it. The problem is still with officials. They put these freedom of movement rules in and they are not being called.

 

[swish7]

The same exact thing happened against St Louis yesterday. St Louis was called for being dry humped by Hancock.

They are whining about it too. It is a stupid rule.

 

[310Pigpen]

the offensive player has to have the right to some amount of space, otherwise what can he do? it was a terrible, game changing call.

I seem to recall them emphasizing this at the beginning of the year, what happened?

 

[SWC75]

Perhaps "intent" is the wrong word. The issue should be: "Who initiated the contact?" If the defender placed himself in harm's way, isn't it his fault?