A rule that needs to Change

[my2cents]

In last night's game against Xavier, UConn challenged an out of bonds call. It was called out on UConn's Smith. However, it was clearly out on Xavier, hence the challenge. When the Refs reviewed the video, they came back with a Flagrant 1 call against Smith, denied the challenge and took a time-out away from UConn. How can this be? The call they were challenging was an out of bounds call, not a foul.
If the Refs. change what they are reviewing, then UConn's challenge should be void and no penalty assessed.
This is rule that needs to be changed.
P.S. Smith in NO WAY committed a Flagrant foul either.

 

[Lafayette]

In last night's game against Xavier, UConn challenged an out of bonds call. It was called out on UConn's Smith. However, it was clearly out on Xavier, hence the challenge. When the Refs reviewed the video, they came back with a Flagrant 1 call against Smith, denied the challenge and took a time-out away from UConn. How can this be? The call they were challenging was an out of bounds call, not a foul.
If the Refs. change what they are reviewing, then UConn's challenge should be void and no penalty assessed.
This is rule that needs to be changed.
P.S. Smith in NO WAY committed a Flagrant foul either.

Rules changed - discovery of a flagrant is allowed on monitor reviews like oob challenge but common fouls cannot.

Rule 4-15 can be enforced.

Total BS as elbows to the head are subjectively called common or bot called while getting the dude away from you is called flagrant.

Only a slight issue is that Hurley said he was unaware of this but it is a rule change this year and someone should be making sure Hurley knows this.

 

[auror]

It's not clear if the discovery of the flagrant caused UConn to lose the challenge or if the refs actually decided it was off UConn.

 

[80shusky]

The flagrant was nonsense to boot!

 

[Nameless]

Rules changed - discovery of a flagrant is allowed on monitor reviews like oob challenge but common fouls cannot.

Rule 4-15 can be enforced.

Total BS as elbows to the head are subjectively called common or bot called while getting the dude away from you is called flagrant.

Only a slight issue is that Hurley said he was unaware of this but it is a rule change this year and someone should be making sure Hurley knows this.

I still agree with his main point though. If you challenge something for it being out of bounds, and you would have won that call, but they discover a flagrant foul on your team in the process you should not lose your challenge. The ball clearly was off Xavier, if you want to say you discovered a flagrant in the process that's fine, but the coach who challenged shouldn't lose a challenge when the initial call on the floor was incorrect.

My issue with this is the whole 2nd half the refs gave X a good whistle, likely because it was such a blowout. It really felt like this was one of those plays where they saw incidental contact as two guys went for the ball, and called it out of bounds instead of a foul to allow the team that had possession to keep the ball. They reviewed the play but saw how obvious it was the ball was off Xavier. They then determined it was a flagrant foul solely because the rules state they cannot call a common foul and wanted the team that already had the ball (Xavier) to keep possession.

There is absolutely no world in which two guys collide going for the ball, one gets up without a scratch and the other has a bloody nose and a flagrant is called on the guy with gause in his nose. That was such a ridiculous call. Without the generous second half whistle for X we honestly may have won this game 100-50

 

[alphasigko]

The flagrant was nonsense to boot!

Yes, there should have been off-setting flagrants because the X player clearly hit Smith in his nose with his elbow.

 

[prankster]

I still agree with his main point though. If you challenge something for it being out of bounds, and you would have won that call, but they discover a flagrant foul on your team in the process you should not lose your challenge. The ball clearly was off Xavier, if you want to say you discovered a flagrant in the process that's fine, but the coach who challenged shouldn't lose a challenge when the initial call on the floor was incorrect.

My issue with this is the whole 2nd half the refs gave X a good whistle, likely because it was such a blowout. It really felt like this was one of those plays where they saw incidental contact as two guys went for the ball, and called it out of bounds instead of a foul to allow the team that had possession to keep the ball. They reviewed the play but saw how obvious it was the ball was off Xavier. They then determined it was a flagrant foul solely because the rules state they cannot call a common foul and wanted the team that already had the ball (Xavier) to keep possession.

There is absolutely no world in which two guys collide going for the ball, one gets up without a scratch and the other has a bloody nose and a flagrant is called on the guy with gause in his nose. That was such a ridiculous call. Without the generous second half whistle for X we honestly may have won this game 100-50

IMHO, the second half whistles cost UConn the 40 point + win.

Forget it Jake. It is BE refs.

 

[Lafayette]

I still agree with his main point though. If you challenge something for it being out of bounds, and you would have won that call, but they discover a flagrant foul on your team in the process you should not lose your challenge. The ball clearly was off Xavier, if you want to say you discovered a flagrant in the process that's fine, but the coach who challenged shouldn't lose a challenge when the initial call on the floor was incorrect.

My issue with this is the whole 2nd half the refs gave X a good whistle, likely because it was such a blowout. It really felt like this was one of those plays where they saw incidental contact as two guys went for the ball, and called it out of bounds instead of a foul to allow the team that had possession to keep the ball. They reviewed the play but saw how obvious it was the ball was off Xavier. They then determined it was a flagrant foul solely because the rules state they cannot call a common foul and wanted the team that already had the ball (Xavier) to keep possession.

There is absolutely no world in which two guys collide going for the ball, one gets up without a scratch and the other has a bloody nose and a flagrant is called on the guy with gause in his nose. That was such a ridiculous call. Without the generous second half whistle for X we honestly may have won this game 100-50

it’s patently unfair and a “review trap”. Due to discovery of flagrant the challenge is auto unsuccessful as flagrant outranks oob. X got 2 foul shots and the ball by rule and by rule the oob challenge was unsuccessful so loss of timeout.

 

[Lafayette]

It's not clear if the discovery of the flagrant caused UConn to lose the challenge or if the refs actually decided it was off UConn.

flagrant discovery renders oob play moot. So challenge was moot an thus unsuccessful. Even plain as day the ball is off X, how would they get the ball to us if under flagrant X gets 2 shots and the ball?

 

[DRBackup]

The bottom line is that on that play the LAST thing that happened was -only- a flagrant foul by Smith. How the hell did he end up bleeding ? That isn't unnecessary contact ? Nevermind that Smith's contact was due to him defending himself against 2 flying arms coming at him

 

[UConnTrumbull]

it’s patently unfair and a “review trap”. Due to discovery of flagrant the challenge is auto unsuccessful as flagrant outranks oob. X got 2 foul shots and the ball by rule and by rule the oob challenge was unsuccessful so loss of timeout.

It’s fair for the flagrant to overrule the challenge but it shouldn’t result in a loss of a challenge. Plenty of other sports have figured this out.

 

[Spaceman213J]

Which contact by Smith was the flagrant for? There was the initial contact, and he got the worst of it and then he with his eyes close he shoved the guy with two hands. If it was for the first, then it should have been a double or better yet, no call. If it was for the shove, I said in a post last night, then Hurley could literally submit about a dozen video clips of Mullins be shoved by offensive players over the course of the last month or two setting screens and/or creating space.

 

[StllH8L8ner]

Even Mrs @StllH8L8ner who knows zero about basketball said “the UConn guy got the foul? He got punched in the head!”. If anything they should’ve been offsetting flagrants.

 

[NJHusky]

The bottom line is that on that play the LAST thing that happened was -only- a flagrant foul by Smith. How the hell did he end up bleeding ? That isn't unnecessary contact ? Nevermind that Smith's contact was due to him defending himself against 2 flying arms coming at him

Smith gets a bloody nose (I guess he punched himself?) and he gets called for a technical…only in the BE and only to UConn. Luckily it didn’t matter

 

[Lafayette]

Smith gets a bloody nose (I guess he punched himself?) and he gets called for a technical…only in the BE and only to UConn. Luckily it didn’t matter

Smith bloody nose was elbow and of course refs said “normal foul” to that but two hands to shoulders or near was of course called “flagrant”. Tis the rules and the refs - let’s save this argument for St. Johns games

 

[my2cents]

I still agree with his main point though. If you challenge something for it being out of bounds, and you would have won that call, but they discover a flagrant foul on your team in the process you should not lose your challenge. The ball clearly was off Xavier, if you want to say you discovered a flagrant in the process that's fine, but the coach who challenged shouldn't lose a challenge when the initial call on the floor was incorrect.

My issue with this is the whole 2nd half the refs gave X a good whistle, likely because it was such a blowout. It really felt like this was one of those plays where they saw incidental contact as two guys went for the ball, and called it out of bounds instead of a foul to allow the team that had possession to keep the ball. They reviewed the play but saw how obvious it was the ball was off Xavier. They then determined it was a flagrant foul solely because the rules state they cannot call a common foul and wanted the team that already had the ball (Xavier) to keep possession.

There is absolutely no world in which two guys collide going for the ball, one gets up without a scratch and the other has a bloody nose and a flagrant is called on the guy with gause in his nose. That was such a ridiculous call. Without the generous second half whistle for X we honestly may have won this game 100-50

100%. Better said than me.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Is there a replay clip? I looked around a bit and haven't found it. And I haven't gone back to my TV to see if there is full game replay to find it.

 

[Donyell 360]

I didn't like the call either and I agree with the OP that it would be more fair to retain your challenge even though you didn't get the ball. But my understanding of the flagrant 1 criteria is that the contact was excessive or unnecessary. To call it unnecessary seems crazy because what could Smith do? He was in a defensive position, trying to protect his face. But because Smith made contact above the shoulder, I can see how it would be considered excessive. It was inadvertent, but intent only applies to flagrant 2. Am I correct?

But I don't understand why the same criteria wasn't applied to the contact to Smith's nose? My assumption is because Smith made contact first? But it seems to me a flagrant act should not be excused because it followed a prior flagrant act. All that being said, this is what happens when undersized players try to defend much taller players. Something tells me it wouldn't have played out that way with another defender besides Smith. His lack of size is a marked disadvantage.

 

[Chief00]

In last night's game against Xavier, UConn challenged an out of bonds call. It was called out on UConn's Smith. However, it was clearly out on Xavier, hence the challenge. When the Refs reviewed the video, they came back with a Flagrant 1 call against Smith, denied the challenge and took a time-out away from UConn. How can this be? The call they were challenging was an out of bounds call, not a foul.
If the Refs. change what they are reviewing, then UConn's challenge should be void and no penalty assessed.
This is rule that needs to be changed.
P.S. Smith in NO WAY committed a Flagrant foul either.

The issue was more O’Connell’s well known feud against Hurley than any other motivation or rule book issue.

 

[Richmondhsky]

How about….if the challenge is overturned and a flagrant foul is called…how do you miss a Flagrant 1? So stripes booted two calls; one of which is designed to protect

 

[CL82]

I still agree with his main point though. If you challenge something for it being out of bounds, and you would have won that call, but they discover a flagrant foul on your team in the process you should not lose your challenge. The ball clearly was off Xavier, if you want to say you discovered a flagrant in the process that's fine, but the coach who challenged shouldn't lose a challenge when the initial call on the floor was incorrect.

My issue with this is the whole 2nd half the refs gave X a good whistle, likely because it was such a blowout. It really felt like this was one of those plays where they saw incidental contact as two guys went for the ball, and called it out of bounds instead of a foul to allow the team that had possession to keep the ball. They reviewed the play but saw how obvious it was the ball was off Xavier. They then determined it was a flagrant foul solely because the rules state they cannot call a common foul and wanted the team that already had the ball (Xavier) to keep possession.

There is absolutely no world in which two guys collide going for the ball, one gets up without a scratch and the other has a bloody nose and a flagrant is called on the guy with gause in his nose. That was such a ridiculous call. Without the generous second half whistle for X we honestly may have won this game 100-50

Apparently, there's been a rule change so that if a player violently impacts other players arm with his nose, it's a flagrant foul. Probably based upon the desire to cut back on rhinovirus and other communicable disease transmission.

 

[Excalibur]

They've always been able to review plays for flagrant fouls. It's how that Texas Tech player was booted last year for "forcible contact to the groin" on a purely basketball play.

I don't think we lost the timeout there. The flagrant call cancelled out the challenge.

Doesn't change the fact that it was an epically awful call, and the reality is that if O'Connell doesn't reverse the OOB call from 50 feet away (which he was clearly wrong about), they probably don't go back and review the play at all.