Can Those More Familiar with the Rule Book...

[psconn]

Explain why this Crawford vs Hartley mugging was not a technical foul of some kind. Looked way more like a football tackle than an attempt at the blocked shot. Apologies if I missed a previous discussion.

Another

And another

 

[VAMike23]

I would be interested to hear also - my general understanding is that the player (or really, the ref) is given an 'out' if they make a play on the ball. If that's all the rule says, then it needs some additional language, IMO.

In that particular play, the defender did indeed make a play on the ball (a split second earlier than the photo above). The problem is, it's not very hard to get your hands on the ball to make sure there's no shot while you're in the process of intentionally running over someone like a Mack truck. In Bria's case, the play on the ball was only a minor part of what happened. The major part was an egregious foul that easily could have resulted in injury.

There should still be room in the rulebook, if there is not already, for a 'Flagrant 1' in situations like this, even when a play on the ball is part of the equation in name only.

 

[rbny1]

I thought it was more like a rodeo performer wrassling a calf. I was waiting for Crawford to pull out a rope and tie Hartley's ankles together. In any event, it's a judgment call. The refs didn't think a technical was appropriate.

 

[HuskyNan]

Geno sure thought it was a flagrant foul. He was about five feet onto the court when CD hauled him back. BTW, for those who didn't watch the game, Geno turned and barked something towards either Terri W-F or Barb Jacobs, who was sitting on Georgetown's side of the court. Maybe that's why there was a drive-by handshake at the end.

 

[pap49cba]

Tweet from Dave Siegel of Dish & S:

DishNSwish Dishin' & Swishin'

GU wisely takes out Adria Crawford before things escalate. She's mentally not in this game anymore. Not even sitting on bench, standing

 

[alexrgct]

Crawford did make a play for the ball, but only after completely mugging Bria. The foul was committed without making any attempt at the basketball, and probably should have been ruled flagrant. The token swat at the ball after might have been what the refs saw that prevented them from calling it, but it was pretty blatant.

 

[speedoo]

There is a word that describes Crawford, but is not allowed here.. I just hope she is one of the seniors, and I hope officials are on notice about her if she ever plays against UConn again.

 

[Biff]

The play in slo-mo

 

[schmendrick]

There is a word that describes Crawford, but is not allowed here.. I just hope she is one of the seniors, and I hope officials are on notice about her if she ever plays against UConn again.

rogue? scoundrel? blackguard?

 

[RoyDodger]

Geno sure thought it was a flagrant foul. He was about five feet onto the court when CD hauled him back. BTW, for those who didn't watch the game, Geno turned and barked something towards either Terri W-F or Barb Jacobs, who was sitting on Georgetown's side of the court. Maybe that's why there was a drive-by handshake at the end.

It's interesting how often the end-game handshake is mentioned for signs of the mood of some individual involved, usually in a negative way.

I find the end-game handshake to be a little silly because it's so perfunctory. Seems to me that sportsmanship should be natural, not forced.

 

[Phil]

IIRC, on the next play, Georgetown was called for an offensive foul, which I thought was the ref doing payback.

 

[ThisJustIn]

And, as I noted in the game thread, I thought Heather sent her own little message to Crawford. So much for a "finesse" team.

 

[speedoo]

IIRC, on the next play, Georgetown was called for an offensive foul, which I thought was the ref doing payback.

I thought so too. Do you recall if that was Donagher, who I thought was the ref who missed the call on Crawford?

 

[rocky rococo]

Being a "finesse" team does not have to mean standing there and passively taking whatever beatings the other team decides to hand out to you. The Red Auerbach Celts were always finesse teams, but Red always had a couple of enforcers on the squad that could give back if the other team tried beating the Celts up. For this year's Huskies, Heather probably is the closest thing available to an enforcer, except that's not really in her personality. After all, she's going into nursing, not law enforcement.

 

[Mattydog]

Without any question it was a flagrant foul.

 

[UcMiami]

Back to the rule - there is definitely a 'did the defender make a play for the ball' issue - if the answer is no, then flagrant is the presumption. If yes, then non-flagrant is the presumption. I think this was definitely a 'mugging' but there was no question that she played for the ball first, and that makes it borderline - hard fouls are not by definition flagrant - and up to the ref. I really think it could have gone either way.
I did see frustration and a determination not to give a possible 'and 1' as had previously happened on a break for Bria, and while it was a violent foul, I didn't see it as a really dangerous foul - the ones that drive a player into the stancheon, or undercut the players legs so first contact with the floor is going to made by the upper body/head are the ones that scare me the most. I am certainly not condoning this foul - and was very glad to see her on the bench quickly. Just noting that I don't think she was trying to hurt Bria.

 

[Bestiarius]

I find the end-game handshake to be a little silly because it's so perfunctory. Seems to me that sportsmanship should be natural, not forced.

So true. "Good game, good game, good game....." (Final score: 94 - 36).

 

[wire chief]

Being a "finesse" team does not have to mean standing there and passively taking whatever beatings the other team decides to hand out to you. The Red Auerbach Celts were always finesse teams, but Red always had a couple of enforcers on the squad that could give back if the other team tried beating the Celts up. For this year's Huskies, Heather probably is the closest thing available to an enforcer, except that's not really in her personality. After all, she's going into nursing, not law enforcement.

lol

 

[Bestiarius]

I would be interested to hear also - my general understanding is that the player (or really, the ref) is given an 'out' if they make a play on the ball. If that's all the rule says, then it needs some additional language, IMO.

There should still be room in the rulebook, if there is not already, for a 'Flagrant 1' in situations like this, even when a play on the ball is part of the equation in name only.

I don't think making a play on the ball is a consideration in calling a flagrant foul. If it's excessive or severe the ref can call a flagrant foul. I remember reading that there will no longer be flagrant technical fouls. The terminology for flagrants will be Flagrant 1 an Flagrant 2. Flagrant 2 will replace Flagrant and Flagrant 1 will replace Flagrant Technical, basically a more severe version of flagrant 2. Flagrant 1 gets you tossed out of the game and (I think) the next game too.

There will be no more intentional foul. Intent is not part of the equation. I guess there is no way for the ref to know what the player intended. Those intentional fouls that teams use when they "have fouls to give" are legal and are not flagrant unless they are dangerous in nature. Going from memory here so I could be (choke) wrong.

 

[speedoo]

I don't think making a play on the ball is a consideration in calling a flagrant foul. If it's excessive or severe the ref can call a flagrant foul. I remember reading that there will no longer be flagrant technical fouls. The terminology for flagrants will be Flagrant 1 an Flagrant 2. Flagrant 2 will replace Flagrant and Flagrant 1 will replace Flagrant Technical, basically a more severe version of flagrant 2. Flagrant 1 gets you tossed out of the game and (I think) the next game too.

There will be no more intentional foul. Intent is not part of the equation. I guess there is no way for the ref to know what the player intended. Those intentional fouls that teams use when they "have fouls to give" are legal and are not flagrant unless they are dangerous in nature. Going from memory here so I could be (choke) wrong.

Makes a lot of sense. How can an official discern intent? They can't, but they can certainly make a judgment on whether or not a foul is flagrant.

 

[VAMike23]

I don't think making a play on the ball is a consideration in calling a flagrant foul. If it's excessive or severe the ref can call a flagrant foul. I remember reading that there will no longer be flagrant technical fouls. The terminology for flagrants will be Flagrant 1 an Flagrant 2. Flagrant 2 will replace Flagrant and Flagrant 1 will replace Flagrant Technical, basically a more severe version of flagrant 2. Flagrant 1 gets you tossed out of the game and (I think) the next game too.

There will be no more intentional foul. Intent is not part of the equation. I guess there is no way for the ref to know what the player intended. Those intentional fouls that teams use when they "have fouls to give" are legal and are not flagrant unless they are dangerous in nature. Going from memory here so I could be (choke) wrong.

Good stuff - informative.

 

[Phil]

. After all, she's going into nursing, not law enforcement.

She needs to think of it as generating customers.

 

[Papa33]

Geno sure thought it was a flagrant foul. He was about five feet onto the court when CD hauled him back. BTW, for those who didn't watch the game, Geno turned and barked something towards either Terri W-F or Barb Jacobs, who was sitting on Georgetown's side of the court. Maybe that's why there was a drive-by handshake at the end.

I was sitting four rows behind the visiting bench and could see Geno glaring directly at the Georgetown coach. I could not hear, but I could see what seemed to be "That's a cheap shot," but could not hear the words.
I'm sure the rules have changed since I stopped coaching varsity girls basketball in Connecticut, but what I saw at the game and in the slo-mo replay definitely qualified as what was once defined as "dangerous" or "flagrant." Crawford made hard body contact with Bria, and then slammed both arms down, also into Bria's torso. Not as dangerous as what we used to call submarining, but it sure put Bria at risk-- no way for her to control her fall. Had Crawford been playing for me, she would have sat the rest of the game . . . at least.
Ironically, Terri W-F was very calm throughout the game, not goading or riling up her players, much lower key than in previous years.

 

[ctfjr]

With so much whining about this play I was beginning to think I was on another forum. Hey it was a hard foul, nothing more. Let's not be complete homers about it. She clearly made some attempt at the ball. We don't like it because it happened to 'one of ours' but it would have been a stretch to call it a flagrant foul - forget the technical, I have no idea where that idea comes from.

 

[RadyLady]

With so much whining about this play I was beginning to think I was on another forum. Hey it was a hard foul, nothing more. Let's not be complete homers about it. She clearly made some attempt at the ball. We don't like it because it happened to 'one of ours' but it would have been a stretch to call it a flagrant foul - forget the technical, I have no idea where that idea comes from.

disagree...about all of the above.