When is a blow to the Head not a foul?

[SCyankee]

I am simply a fan of UConn basketball, not a former player, coach or sportswriter. Will somebody please explain why our players repeatedly take blows to the eye, nose, mouth and head with completely different foul calls or lack thereof?

 

[Centerstream]

When it's reviewed by some refs and getting elbowed in the ear, no matter the reason, is deemed to be incidental. Oh, and the culprit is not playing for UConn.

 

[AgStatesman]

Similarly, it always amazes me when a player gets hit in the face to the point that they are bleeding and there was no call.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Because the refs deem it "incidental contact" which I guess makes it OK?

 

[Biff]

The way this plays out is
1) Any blow to the head is a foul.
a) If it is seen by an official, it is a common foul.
b) If it is not seen by an official, it can be reviewed at the next dead ball to evaluate if it is a flagrant foul (intentional contact).
1) If it is determined that the unseen contact was incidental, unintentional and in the flow of play no foul can be called. (the refs cannot use replay to call a missed common foul)
2) If it is determined that the contact was intentional/flagrant a technical foul is called by the refs (always after way too many minutes of review and deliberation) giving the receiver of the blow 2 foul shots and possession of the ball.

 

[oldude]

Watching the two incidents in yesterday’s game and trying to decipher what exactly the refs were thinking is a bit of a challenge. In the first instance with Aaliyah, the refs determined that when Aaliyah attempted a “swim move” to get by her defender the defender’s elbow hitting her in the side of the head was incidental contact. Not sure I agree. But I understand the decision.

In the second instance, when the KS player drove the lane, Amari moved to defend the shot, at which time the KS player clearly hit Amari in the face intentionally, to ward her off. After reviewing the play, a flagrant foul was called, which was clearly correct, with Paige knocking down 2 FT’s and UConn getting the ball.

What l did not understand is that a common foul was also assessed on Amari and the KS player received 2 FT’s before Paige shot her FT’s. In several reviews of the play, it was clear that the KS player struck Amari in the face before any contact occurred between Amari & the KS player. By my way of thinking, the common foul should have been waved off with just a flagrant assessed against KS.

 

[Cuango]

The player who first hit Aaliyah across the face (with no foul being called) promptly did it again against Amari! She apparently uses that off arm like that on every drive! Eventually, she will end up hurting someone! I was appalled at the officiating last night! Why can’t these Refs call the game fairly, consistently, and competently? I realize it’s not the easiest job in the world but how about just calling the game consistently for both teams?

 

[Bone Dog]

the KS player clearly hit Amari in the face intentionally, to ward her off

She apparently uses that off arm like that on every drive!

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the KS player [Samiya Nichols?] should have been ejected after having used that move repeatedly. However, I can see not thinking it was intentional. It looks like this is how she's figured out how to drive the lane. If she only did it the once, it seems like a stronger case for intentional foul than if she does it because she's been poorly taught. But if that's the real situation, then an ejection or two may be what it takes to get her to relearn her technique.

 

[mbr33ct]

Time for Aaliyah to put her mask on again and become the AA player she is.

 

[BRS24]

What l did not understand is that a common foul was also assessed on Amari and the KS player received 2 FT’s before Paige shot her FT’s. In several reviews of the play, it was clear that the KS player struck Amari in the face before any contact occurred between Amari & the KS player. By my way of thinking, the common foul should have been waved off with just a flagrant assessed against KS.

I think the refs called a foul on Amari first, then had to address the flagrant, however the commentators were probably prattling on about some random thing. Too much dialogue and not enough color commentary. They were not prepared with much, if any player background, as neither knew why Paige has a thumb splint, and yet she's had it for most of the season.

 

[Kat]

I watch a lot of basketball outside of this team's games but have never seen a group that suffers so many shots to the head.

 

[Bone Dog]

I think the confusion about the common foul against Amari is that folks thought she'd bumped the girl with her body. Replay shows this doesn't really happen. But what is clear from the replay is the Amari grabbed her left arm twice in the process of the drive.

 

[JoePgh]

The way this plays out is
1) Any blow to the head is a foul.
a) If it is seen by an official, it is a common foul.
b) If it is not seen by an official, it can be reviewed at the next dead ball to evaluate if it is a flagrant foul (intentional contact).
1) If it is determined that the unseen contact was incidental, unintentional and in the flow of play no foul can be called. (the refs cannot use replay to call a missed common foul)
2) If it is determined that the contact was intentional/flagrant a technical foul is called by the refs (always after way too many minutes of review and deliberation) giving the receiver of the blow 2 foul shots and possession of the ball.

We'll need a basketball lawyer to weigh in (@stamfordhusky , where are you?), but I don't think the bolded statement above is necessarily correct. I think you meant to say that "if it is seen by an official, it is at least a common foul." Officials can call the common foul and then review the replay to determine whether it warrants an upgrade to "intentional".

By the way, "intentional" doesn't mean what it sounds like -- it doesn't require the official to determine that the player intended to hit the opponent in the head, only that it was careless and not the result of a normal basketball play. The term "flagrant" (used in the WNBA) would be more descriptive than "intentional". (Never mind that truly intentional fouls by the losing team near the end of the game, for the purpose of stopping the clock, are never called intentional and normally do not involve any risk of injury to the player who is fouled.)

However, you are correct that if the refs do not see or call the contact to the head during live action, they may still review the play to see if it warrants a flagrant/intentional foul. (This will usually happen because the player who receives the facial hit is on the floor in obvious discomfort.) If the replay results in a determination that the foul was flagrant/intentional, then it can be called and free throws can be awarded, BUT if it does not rise to the level of flagrant/intentional, the officials cannot retrospectively call a common foul even though that's what it was.

Is this correct? Is it comprehensible?

 

[Jokerman619]

There is no excuse for the official in the cases. I say stay out of the islands. Someone needs to take control of this. Including Geno and the college. To me it's the lack of character of the opposition. And same with ucla, with the headbutt. You can't explain any of it. But I do feel so proud of our Huskies, who could have easily caused a scene. But unlike the opposition, uconn has class. Go Huskies

 

[Centerstream]

The way this plays out is
1) Any blow to the head is a foul.
a) If it is seen by an official, it is a common foul.
b) If it is not seen by an official, it can be reviewed at the next dead ball to evaluate if it is a flagrant foul (intentional contact).
1) If it is determined that the unseen contact was incidental, unintentional and in the flow of play no foul can be called. (the refs cannot use replay to call a missed common foul)
2) If it is determined that the contact was intentional/flagrant a technical foul is called by the refs (always after way too many minutes of review and deliberation) giving the receiver of the blow 2 foul shots and possession of the ball.

If it's a technical foul, can't anyone take the FTs? Didn't this happen when Amari was hit in the nose and after the review, Paige took the FTs or am I misinterpreting what happened?

 

[CajunHusky]

If it's a technical foul, can't anyone take the FTs? Didn't this happen when Amari was hit in the nose and after the review, Paige took the FTs or am I misinterpreting what happened?

A google returns:

Intentional contact on a live ball is a personal foul. Intentional contact on a dead ball is a technical foul.

 

[willtalk]

I think the refs called a foul on Amari first, then had to address the flagrant, however the commentators were probably prattling on about some random thing. Too much dialogue and not enough color commentary. They were not prepared with much, if any player background, as neither knew why Paige has a thumb splint, and yet she's had it for most of the season.

You certainly mean Play by Play not color commentary. Womens game tend to have too much color commentary and not enought Play by Play. That is especially true for WNBA gaves. Doing good play by play requires a high degree of skill. With women they generally pick ex players or coaches to do both. The excessive prattling results when both in the booth become color commentators.

A significant reason the WNBA is not popular is that when announcers prattle on about everything but the game on hand it detracts from the game. A good play/play announcer can promote interest in each active game. It takes a good play/play person to know when to interject information and when to stick to what is happening on the court. That is doubly important for a good color announcer. They have to know when it is ok to interupt and when to shut up. Its about filling in spaces, not creating spaces where they do no exist.

 

[BRS24]

You certainly mean Play by Play not color commentary. Womens game tend to have too much color commentary and not enought Play by Play. That is especially true for WNBA gaves. Doing good play by play requires a high degree of skill. With women they generally pick ex players or coaches to do both. The excessive prattling results when both in the booth become color commentators.

A significant reason the WNBA is not popular is that when announcers prattle on about everything but the game on hand it detracts from the game. A good play/play announcer can promote interest in each active game. It takes a good play/play person to know when to interject information and when to stick to what is happening on the court. That is doubly important for a good color announcer. They have to know when it is ok to interupt and when to shut up. Its about filling in spaces, not creating spaces where they do no exist.

Good points. I was using the terms interchangeably, however I agree they are not.

 

[Biff]

I think you meant to say that "if it is seen by an official, it is at least a common foul." Officials can call the common foul and then review the replay to determine whether it warrants an upgrade to "intentional".

Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[Biff]

If it's a technical foul, can't anyone take the FTs?

Yes.

 

[TWG236]

To be honest, in the last minute of the game, the Kansas player fouled Nika and then used her left hand to intentionally shove Nika in the back and pushed her to the floor. Nika was very upset that it wasn’t called an intentional foul. They showed the play several times and it was very obvious. I believe teams are becoming increasingly aggressive against us, realizing that most of the times the ref’s won’t make the call.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

I am simply a fan of UConn basketball, not a former player, coach or sportswriter. Will somebody please explain why our players repeatedly take blows to the eye, nose, mouth and head with completely different foul calls or lack thereof?

Basketball officiating can be so bad, at times. The NCAA makes so much money, they need to make it so that being a referee is a full time job with off season training updates, etc.

 

[BB Dawg]

I watch a lot of basketball outside of this team's games but have never seen a group that suffers so many shots to the head.

I feel Kansas intentionally or not were being physical with arms and hands flying. Intentional or not, they are fouls. Especially seeing how the game was being played. - Nica got mauled in the final minutes.

 

[ctkaiser]

Now, don't get me wrong. I think the KS player [Samiya Nichols?] should have been ejected after having used that move repeatedly. However, I can see not thinking it was intentional. It looks like this is how she's figured out how to drive the lane. If she only did it the once, it seems like a stronger case for intentional foul than if she does it because she's been poorly taught. But if that's the real situation, then an ejection or two may be what it takes to get her to relearn her technique.

For some reason the use of the non dribbling arm as a clear out seems to be allowed unless it's very flagrant. Magic Johnson made it part of his game and Caitlin Clark does it as well. Maybe one of these seasons it will be a point of emphasis. Until then defender beware. I think it's BS that it's allowed.

 

[Forego]

I am simply a fan of UConn basketball, not a former player, coach or sportswriter. Will somebody please explain why our players repeatedly take blows to the eye, nose, mouth and head with completely different foul calls or lack thereof?

A very timely question because Texas is next up on the schedule. Most forum members will remember Katie Lou getting elbowed in the eye by a Texas player. No foul was called and Katie Lou ended up looking like she had gone a couple of rounds with Mike Tyson. During an NCAA tourney game Lou 2 was taking the Texas defense to task until she hit in the face by a Texas player and needed stitches to close the wound. I am not saying that the Texas players are overly aggressive or that certain referees miss a lot of calls against Texas. The two instances I cite are purely coincidental. However, just to be on the safe side the UConn staff may want to consiider fitted face masks for all of the Huskies.

 

[Skeets]

What makes me crazy is when a defender barely touches a player's shooting hand AFTER the ball is released and is called for a foul, while vicious hits on drives are just "incidental" contact, no foul. There is no, what is the word I'm looking for, -- equivalence.

 

[HopJim]

NFL wide receivers don't use the straight arm hit to the defenders head as much as Kansas did. Random contact I understand but this was clearly a tactic taught and encouraged.

 

[Rowdy831]

We'll need a basketball lawyer to weigh in (@stamfordhusky , where are you?), but I don't think the bolded statement above is necessarily correct. I think you meant to say that "if it is seen by an official, it is at least a common foul." Officials can call the common foul and then review the replay to determine whether it warrants an upgrade to "intentional".

By the way, "intentional" doesn't mean what it sounds like -- it doesn't require the official to determine that the player intended to hit the opponent in the head, only that it was careless and not the result of a normal basketball play. The term "flagrant" (used in the WNBA) would be more descriptive than "intentional". (Never mind that truly intentional fouls by the losing team near the end of the game, for the purpose of stopping the clock, are never called intentional and normally do not involve any risk of injury to the player who is fouled.)

However, you are correct that if the refs do not see or call the contact to the head during live action, they may still review the play to see if it warrants a flagrant/intentional foul. (This will usually happen because the player who receives the facial hit is on the floor in obvious discomfort.) If the replay results in a determination that the foul was flagrant/intentional, then it can be called and free throws can be awarded, BUT if it does not rise to the level of flagrant/intentional, the officials cannot retrospectively call a common foul even though that's what it was.

Is this correct? Is it comprehensible?

I agree with your clarification. The issue is any foul called using video results in free throws where a common foul only does if the team is in the bonus or the player was shooting. Replay to me in all sports seems like more problems than solutions so let them play and give each team a couple challenges a game to use. That way the flow isn't dictated by officials.

 

[CTBballfan243]

I am simply a fan of UConn basketball, not a former player, coach or sportswriter. Will somebody please explain why our players repeatedly take blows to the eye, nose, mouth and head with completely different foul calls or lack thereof?

Basketball is a contact sport. It you play it you're gonna get knocked around.

 

[ThisJustIn]

Basketball officiating can be so bad, at times. The NCAA makes so much money, they need to make it so that being a referee is a full time job with off season training updates, etc.

The only way that happens is if the NCAA takes over officiating, removing it from the hands of the Conferences' "Head of Officials."
They'd then have to create a fully funded body across D1/2/3 that supervised, trained, recruited, evaluated, assigned, paid, insured, etc. etc.