Can someone explain-

[Scot-e]

How Bazz getting smashed in the face with an intentional elbow was not called a foul after it was reviewed?

I mean it looked way worse then most of the other contact they were calling during the game. I know it does not mater anymore ( I am booking a ticket for the FF today)- but that stuck in my head a s a WTF moment.

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

 

[Husky25]

I don't think it was reviewed. Got a text from a friend that said as much. I quote, "The one time all f*@king tournament they don't go to the monitor."

 

[J-dog]

How Bazz getting smashed in the face with an intentional elbow was not called a foul after it was reviewed?

I mean it looked way worse then most of the other contact they were calling during the game. I know it does not mater anymore ( I am booking a ticket for the FF today)- but that stuck in my head a s a WTF moment.

WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

They would not show the replay at the game… It looked looked pretty flagrant at first glance… Was surprised when it was determined to be a non-call…

 

[Jerry1714]

It was reviewed.

It was not a flagrant

 

[J-dog]

I don't think it was reviewed. Got a text from a friend that said as much. I quote, "The one time all f*@king tournament they don't go to the monitor."

they did go to the monitor…

 

[8893]

They went to the monitor and reviewed it. I was in a suite with two flat screens and a pretty good view of the court and I could see them reviewing it from where I was, and I was also able to watch the replay on the flat screen. At that point a foul had already been called on Bazz and they couldn't reverse that with a review. What they were reviewing was whether there was a flagrant foul on MSU. From what I saw on the replay, it looked like the forearm, not the elbow; and it looked incidental to a basketball play and not flagrant.

 

[upstater]

It has to be above the shoulders, and while Napier got hit in the face, he was bent over, so you can get hit low. Arms or elbows not allowed above shoulder level, so I'm assuming that you can get hit inadvertently below 5 1/2 feet but not above.

The foul call on Bazz though was absolutely comical.

 

[Husky25]

It was reviewed.

It was not a flagrant

So was the rule was changed in the 4 days between the round of 32 and the sweet 16? Of all the Flagrants called in the first 4 days of the tournament, yesterdays play met every definition the others met. I don't think it was intentional, but it was certainly a flagrant 1.

 

[Husky25]

They went to the monitor and reviewed it. I was in a suite with two flat screens and a pretty good view of the court and I could see them reviewing it from where I was, and I was also able to watch the replay on the flat screen. At that point a foul had already been called on Bazz and they couldn't reverse that with a review. What they were reviewing was whether there was a flagrant foul on MSU. From what I saw on the replay, it looked like the forearm, not the elbow; and it looked incidental to a basketball play and not flagrant.

So you keep the foul on Shabazz. Fine. But that was a flagrant foul, by rule. If Napier had a concussion, does it really matter if his brain injury was caused by an elbow or a forearm? It's a terrible rule to begin with, but if it's going to be enforced it needs to be enforced 100% of the time.

 

[Husky25]

It has to be above the shoulders, and while Napier got hit in the face, he was bent over, so you can get hit low. Arms or elbows not allowed above shoulder level, so I'm assuming that you can get hit inadvertently below 5 1/2 feet but not above.

The foul call on Bazz though was absolutely comical.

Shabazz Napier is 6'-1" on stilts. His triple threat stance puts him below 5 1/2 feet. So by definition a flagrant can never be called on him. That's a comical interpretation of the rule, if in fact that was the ruling.

 

[Husky25]

they did go to the monitor…

Then they changed the channel, because they could not have been reviewing the play that just occurred.

 

[upstater]

Shabazz Napier is 6'-1" on stilts. His triple threat stance puts him below 5 1/2 feet. So by definition a flagrant can never be called on him. That's a comical interpretation of the rule, if in fact that was the ruling.

What do you think the rule is? Flagrant 1 is for unintentional hits on the opposition. But it can't simply be any unintentional hit. Above the shoulders is but one of the parameters. The fact that the player swung his arm downward and struck Napier in the face has everything to do with the fact it wasn't called a foul.

 

[Husky25]

What do you think the rule is? Flagrant 1 is for unintentional hits on the opposition. But it can't simply be any unintentional hit. Above the shoulders is but one of the parameters. The fact that the player swung his arm downward and struck Napier in the face has everything to do with the fact it wasn't called a foul.

The intent of the rule is to reduce the threat of concussion. I'm not one to bash refs very often. Bad calls typically go both ways. I just found this one egregious, considering how this type of action has been called in other instances in the tournament and it was reviewed (I didn't think it was, but stand corrected). It also appeared that the MSU travel call (IIRC) on their next possession was a make up call of sorts for what the refs just missed.

 

[upstater]

The intent of the rule is to reduce the threat of concussion. I'm not one to bash refs very often. Bad calls typically go both ways. I just found this one egregious, considering how this type of action has been called in other instances in the tournament and it was reviewed (I didn't think it was, but stand corrected). It also appeared that the MSU travel call (IIRC) on their next possession was a make up call of sorts for what the refs just missed.

Players cannot swing their arms out from their shoulders and upwards. Inadvertent hits below that are part of the game. It's the same in hockey with high sticks. The logic makes perfect sense, it's not comical at all.

It is a problem when some 6'6 guy is posting up Brimah. We've seen this happen already this year.

 

[Waquoit]

If that wasn't a flagrant 1, there's no such thing.

 

[Husky25]

Players cannot swing their arms out from their shoulders and upwards. Inadvertent hits below that are part of the game. It's the same in hockey with high sticks. The logic makes perfect sense, it's not comical at all.

It is a problem when some 6'6 guy is posting up Brimah. We've seen this happen already this year.

Swing arms out and upwards is only an example of a Flagrant 1. It does not constitute the entire body of actions that would constitute a Flagrant 1. I never said that the play wasn't part of the game, nor did I say it was intentional. Intent has nothing to do with it. That is why the rule is no longer refer to an intentional foul. I think the motion was somewhat excessive and it was certainly above Shabazz's shoulders.

 

[upstater]

Swing arms out and upwards is only an example of a Flagrant 1. It does not constitute the entire body of actions that would constitute a Flagrant 1. I never said that the play wasn't part of the game, nor did I say it was intentional. Intent has nothing to do with it. That is why the rule is no longer refer to an intentional foul. I think the motion was somewhat excessive and it was certainly above Shabazz's shoulders.

Actually, intent has something to do with Flagrant 2s. It has nothing to do with flagrant 1s. And above the shoulder refers to the swinger, not the victim.

 

[Husky25]

Actually, intent has something to do with Flagrant 2s. It has nothing to do with flagrant 1s. And above the shoulder refers to the swinger, not the victim.

What does Flagrant 2 have to do with the discussion? Who thinks it was a Flagrant 2? And I'll say it again, in case you missed it (I'll even quote the NCAA) You only gave a single example of what a Flagrant 1 is. The Intent of the rule is to reduce injury.

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

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-05-26/prop-approves-rules-changes

 

[upstater]

What does Flagrant 2 have to do with the discussion?

Part of what the refs still do is look at intent. Intent is always part of this discussion since it is a factor in decided the level of flagrant. if he had swung his arm intentionally, it would have been a 2.

 

[Palatine]

They went to the monitor and reviewed it. I was in a suite with two flat screens and a pretty good view of the court and I could see them reviewing it from where I was, and I was also able to watch the replay on the flat screen. At that point a foul had already been called on Bazz and they couldn't reverse that with a review. What they were reviewing was whether there was a flagrant foul on MSU. From what I saw on the replay, it looked like the forearm, not the elbow; and it looked incidental to a basketball play and not flagrant.

F1 doesn't mater if it is "incidental." It just matters if he get hit by the elbow. F2 considers intent.

 

[Husky25]

Intent is not a part of this discussion because no one is arguing intent. I'm not arguing semantics any further because at the end of the day, UConn won the game. The call was blown. Done and Done.