Can this Dude bust a trey!!!

(01-14-2016 11:07 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:36 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I'm still not sure why that was not a Flagrant Foul. Seemed to involve excessive, severe contact. Intent does not matter, as we've seen over the years.

I think intent matters to some extent. He was clearly making a play on the for the ball. That should not have been a flagrant IMO.

Intent does NOT matter. It's in the definition and the interpretation. All that is required is excessive contact for a Flagrant Personal.

Flagrant Technical is where intent comes into play. That results in ejection.

(01-14-2016 01:43 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:07 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:36 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I'm still not sure why that was not a Flagrant Foul. Seemed to involve excessive, severe contact. Intent does not matter, as we've seen over the years.

I think intent matters to some extent. He was clearly making a play on the for the ball. That should not have been a flagrant IMO.

Shouldn't have been flagrant. It was a bang bang play

As are just about all Flagrant Personal fouls.

(01-15-2016 01:38 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:07 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:36 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I'm still not sure why that was not a Flagrant Foul. Seemed to involve excessive, severe contact. Intent does not matter, as we've seen over the years.

I think intent matters to some extent. He was clearly making a play on the for the ball. That should not have been a flagrant IMO.

Intent does NOT matter. It's in the definition and the interpretation. All that is required is excessive contact for a Flagrant Personal.

Flagrant Technical is where intent comes into play. That results in ejection.

Here is the wording verbatim from the rule book. Interpret it as you please, but it clearly is not written to assess a flagrant foul on a player who is making a legitimate play on a ball and runs into an opposing player while doing so. The referees have to use discretion and they did in this case and made the right call by simply assessing a personal foul.

Flagrant 1 personal foul. 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;
2-BasketballRule from JC.indd 47 8/5/2013 9:09:28 AM
48 Rule 4 / Definitions
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 which is deemed
excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

(01-14-2016 07:33 PM)mapdude Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:21 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:13 PM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:10 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  Seriously, maybe I'm just ignorant about how things work for players, but I hope whatever medical-dental plan players have covers fixing his teeth.

I know various doctors for the teams. Basically there is a trade of seats for services or doctors/dentists/etc do it for very reduced fees.

I'm glad to hear a doctor or dentist fan will step up, but the school should really provide insurance coverage imho, at least for sports-related injuries.

you cant tell me that you really think the university does not provide complete health coverage to players. Really?

(01-15-2016 02:04 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:38 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:07 AM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:36 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I'm still not sure why that was not a Flagrant Foul. Seemed to involve excessive, severe contact. Intent does not matter, as we've seen over the years.

I think intent matters to some extent. He was clearly making a play on the for the ball. That should not have been a flagrant IMO.

Intent does NOT matter. It's in the definition and the interpretation. All that is required is excessive contact for a Flagrant Personal.

Flagrant Technical is where intent comes into play. That results in ejection.

Here is the wording verbatim from the rule book. Interpret it as you please, but it clearly is not written to assess a flagrant foul on a player who is making a legitimate play on a ball and runs into an opposing player while doing so. The referees have to use discretion and they did in this case and made the right call by simply assessing a personal foul.

Flagrant 1 personal foul. 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;
2-BasketballRule from JC.indd 47 8/5/2013 9:09:28 AM
48 Rule 4 / Definitions
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 which is deemed
excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

It's just my opinion, obviously. But I'm still not clear on why you think #1 above was not in play with the foul on Tarrant. That's what I've been saying "excessive contact".

As Joey would say, it's a moo point now.