Seton Hall got called for the Flagrant Foul today while Vandy didn't in our game - Why?

[Alaskawildkat]

In both games the chasing player reached out with both hands to foul his opponent but in yesterday's game the foul did not get ruled as flagrant while in today's game it was. If I understand the rules correctly, in addition to going to the free throw line we also would have retained possession thus denying Vandy the chance they still had to try for a tying or winning bucket.

There appeared to be a consensus on the In Game "chat" Thread that the refs were pretty one-sided throughout the game with advantage being to Vandy. Was this one more example?

This from Lou's feature:

"The Wildcats would lose that lead once more on a layup by LaChance, but then came the turning point: a needless foul by Matthew Fisher-Davis on McIntosh near half-court. Fisher-Davis, mistakenly thinking the Commodores were losing, intentionally fouled McIntosh, the best free-throw shooter on the team, with 15 seconds left.

McIntosh calmly sank both free throws and the Wildcats again had a one-point lead. This time, they wouldn’t let it go. After a miss by LaChance from beyond the arc, Lumpkin made one of two free throws to give the Wildcats their final margin."

This from a commentary on today's Arkansas v. Seton Hall game:

With Arkansas up one point and pushing the ball up against a full-court press, Jaylen Barford was delivered the ball and was pushed in the back with two hands by a trailing Rodriguez, causing Barford to trip over Rodriguez's foot as he fell forward and lost his balance. The call on the floor was originally a common foul, but was upgraded to a flagrant one after further review. Arkansas was sent to the line for free throws and maintained possession afterward, allowing the Razorbacks to seal a 77-71 victory.

And this the flagrant foul rule:

From the NCAA men's basketball rulebook, Rule 4; Section 15; Article 2.c.2:

A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that
is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely
on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock
from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed
excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
personal foul (pg. 47)

 

[mikewebb68]

The Arkansas game push was MUCH harder, imo

 

[GlideCat]

In both games the chasing player reached out with both hands to foul his opponent but in yesterday's game the foul did not get ruled as flagrant while in today's game it was. If I understand the rules correctly, in addition to going to the free throw line we also would have retained possession thus denying Vandy the chance they still had to try for a tying or winning bucket.

There appeared to be a consensus on the In Game "chat" Thread that the refs were pretty one-sided throughout the game with advantage being to Vandy. Was this one more example?

This from Lou's feature:

"The Wildcats would lose that lead once more on a layup by LaChance, but then came the turning point: a needless foul by Matthew Fisher-Davis on McIntosh near half-court. Fisher-Davis, mistakenly thinking the Commodores were losing, intentionally fouled McIntosh, the best free-throw shooter on the team, with 15 seconds left.

McIntosh calmly sank both free throws and the Wildcats again had a one-point lead. This time, they wouldn’t let it go. After a miss by LaChance from beyond the arc, Lumpkin made one of two free throws to give the Wildcats their final margin."

This from a commentary on today's Arkansas v. Seton Hall game:

With Arkansas up one point and pushing the ball up against a full-court press, Jaylen Barford was delivered the ball and was pushed in the back with two hands by a trailing Rodriguez, causing Barford to trip over Rodriguez's foot as he fell forward and lost his balance. The call on the floor was originally a common foul, but was upgraded to a flagrant one after further review. Arkansas was sent to the line for free throws and maintained possession afterward, allowing the Razorbacks to seal a 77-71 victory.

And this the flagrant foul rule:

From the NCAA men's basketball rulebook, Rule 4; Section 15; Article 2.c.2:

A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that
is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely
on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock
from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed
excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
personal foul (pg. 47)

Although everyone knew from looking at it that Fisher-Davis' foul was intentional and designed to stop the clock, the motion of his arm was in the vicinity of MacIntosh's ball handling hand and arm. This allowed the referees to consider it a common foul which is preferred by those of us that are fans of the "let the kids play" style of refereeing. A shove in the back forces the referees to call the flagrant. No wiggle room.

 

[willycat]

Although everyone knew from looking at it that Fisher-Davis' foul was intentional and designed to stop the clock, the motion of his arm was in the vicinity of MacIntosh's ball handling hand and arm. This allowed the referees to consider it a common foul which is preferred by those of us that are fans of the "let the kids play" style of refereeing. A shove in the back forces the referees to call the flagrant. No wiggle room.

Thinking that the refs should call the game by the rule book. Davis grabbed Mac, with no attempt to the ball, thus definitely was a classic fragrant. Also a intentional foul should be called when the defensive team fouls before the ball can be inbounded. An obvious intentional foul who's only purpose is to not let the clock start. Pardon was also grabbed around the neck when driving to the basket, which was as fragrant as it gets. No calls from the zebras against Vandy. Hope we get the kind of refs that worked the Seton Hall -Arkansas game today.

 

[GlideCat]

Thinking that the refs should call the game by the rule book.

There is an element of subjectivity to it. The vast majority of the time, a play like the Fisher-Davis foul is going to be called a common foul. That is a well established precedent at all levels. It is rare for that to be called flagrant be the refs. Likely, the Seton Hall-Arkansas game refs would have called it the same way.

 

[Alan Smithee]

The Vandy foul that I thought should have had consequences was the one with about 1.3 seconds - before we could inbound the ball. By definition there was no play on the ball. The foul was intended to permit no time to go off the clock.

The Fisher-Davis foul was routine, if a mistaken decision.

 

[Deeringfish]

There is an element of subjectivity to it. The vast majority of the time, a play like the Fisher-Davis foul is going to be called a common foul. That is a well established precedent at all levels. It is rare for that to be called flagrant be the refs. Likely, the Seton Hall-Arkansas game refs would have called it the same way.

I agree here that the foul was very typical of fouls at that stage of a game. Technically, I think it does break the rule so I suppose the rule should be revised to reflect the reality of how the NCAA wants the game to be guided.

 

[Medill90]

The rules are meant to protect the players and, as posted up thread, it's a judgement call.

The Vandy foul was a "laying of the hands" and in no way threatened BMac. It did not approach excessive.

The Seton Hall player could have fouled from behind in a different manner that did not put the Arkansas player at risk. He could have dove forward and reached for the ball with one hand. A hard, two-hand push from behind is excessive and so a flagrant.

 

[willycat]

The Vandy foul that I thought should have had consequences was the one with about 1.3 seconds - before we could inbound the ball. By definition there was no play on the ball. The foul was intended to permit no time to go off the clock.

The Fisher-Davis foul was routine, if a mistaken decision.

Your probably right but then the NCAA rule should be changed to reflect that. Also agree that the pre inbounds foul was by definition intentional and should have called two shots and NU ball.

 

[GlideCat]

Your probably right but then the NCAA rule should be changed to reflect that. Also agree that the pre inbounds foul was by definition intentional and should have called two shots and NU ball.

No need to change it. The actual rule is:

A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act.

The rest is examples. This wording (particularly "deemed") allows for subjectivity in interpretation by the ref in play.

 

[D_C_B]

Your probably right but then the NCAA rule should be changed to reflect that. Also agree that the pre inbounds foul was by definition intentional and should have called two shots and NU ball.

Not sure I agree that all pre-inbound fouls should be deemed flagrant by definition.

A player makes a great move and shakes a defender, whose only resort becomes to grab jersey...

A defender who doesn't see a screen coming and plows over the screener.

Heck, a defender who simply trips over his own feet and stumbles into a guy making a move to get open.

There are plenty of examples where it's just a foul.

I do, however, agree that late in games, there should be an extra-judicious eye toward pre-inbounds fouls, particularly holding and grabbing.