NCAA Basketball 2012-2013

[Big Sexy]

The reason they changed the naming from intentional and flagrant to flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 was because a players intent has nothing to do with the rule. Obviously Craft was just trying to get a quick foul but he made illegal contact to the head/neck area which is a flagrant one. The refs let it go because they didn't want it to decide the game, just like the no call at the end.

"Never" was too strong a word in my previous post, but more often then not, that type of foul does not get called at the end of the game. You can agree or disagree on whether they should let things like that go but it happens in many situations for many different teams.

 

[Slyfox696]

The reason they changed the naming from intentional and flagrant to flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 was because a players intent has nothing to do with the rule.

Uhh, that is completely false.

Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above or below the shoulders; swinging of the elbow is required for the foul to be classified as a flagrant 1 or 2 foul. Some incidental contact is being penalized improperly.

...

Art. 7. When during the course of play (live ball), an individual strikes an opponent with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a nonconfrontational manner but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant 2 personal foul and not a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by the official as to whether the contact is a flagrant 1 personal foul.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR13.pdf

The fact Craft was going after the ball, while intending to stop the clock, and he accidentally made contact with the head is why it was not a flagrant. It wasn't a case of "letting the players decide the game".

Obviously Craft was just trying to get a quick foul but he made illegal contact to the head/neck area which is a flagrant one. The refs let it go because they didn't want it to decide the game, just like the no call at the end.

We now know your statement to be completely false.

"Never" was too strong a word in my previous post, but more often then not, that type of foul does not get called at the end of the game.

Which is exactly what I was complaining about.

You can agree or disagree on whether they should let things like that go but it happens in many situations for many different teams.

What are you talking about? Do you really think I care that it benefited Michigan? Like I said, if the situations were reversed, I'd be just as frustrated with it, similar to how I was frustrated with it in the Super Bowl (view the LD for the Super Bowl). The difference is I imagine you'd probably be more upset if it had gone against Michigan.

 

[Big Sexy]

I stated that intent has nothing to do with whether a foul is flagrant or not and that is true.

Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above or below the shoulders; swinging of the elbow is required for the foul to be classified as a flagrant 1 or 2 foul. Some incidental contact is being penalized improperly.

There was no elbowing involved so this is irrelevant but either way, Craft's contact with Robinson was not incidental. He was purposely making contact with him to foul him.

When a defined body part is used to strike an opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by the official as to whether the contact is a flagrant 1 personal foul.

The rule states that when the contact is not excessive or severe then the official can make a judgement call. This still has nothing to do with intent, it is just whether the contact was severe enough to warrant a flagrant. If this had been earlier in the game I would suspect a flagrant would have been called. Just like if the final play occurred earlier in the game a foul would have likely been called.

 

[Slyfox696]

I stated that intent has nothing to do with whether a foul is flagrant or not and that is true.

No, no it's not. The very definition of the word incidental proves that intent is part of it.

There was no elbowing involved so this is irrelevant but either way, Craft's contact with Robinson was not incidental. He was purposely making contact with him to foul him.

But he was not intentionally hitting Robinson in the head. Thus the head contact, which is one of the major determining factors of flagrant foul, was incidental and happened solely because Robinson raised the ball over his head to pass.

It amazes me how you continue to argue something when it's clear you are wrong.

The rule states that when the contact is not excessive or severe then the official can make a judgement call. This still has nothing to do with intent

This is just laughable. It has a lot to do with intent. Intent and severity are the two factors which play into whether a call is flagrant. If it's not excessive or severe, what else can the judgment be based upon? Whether they like the player or the team? Intent plays a huge part in deciding if a foul is flagrant, and is really the primary determinant after you've decided it's not excessive or severe.

If this had been earlier in the game I would suspect a flagrant would have been called.

Very possibly, because if it had been earlier in the game, Craft would have had no reason to foul and stop the clock. It would have been a foul out of frustration, and his intent would have been to "get back" the foul.

Just like if the final play occurred earlier in the game a foul would have likely been called.

Just like it should have been called when it happened.

At the end of the day, the referees decided the game. The "let the players decide" mentality ended up being the referees deciding the game. Would Craft have made the layup if he wasn't fouled? We don't know. Would Craft have made the FTs to tie the game? We don't know. But we DO know he was fouled and because the referees didn't call the foul, they didn't let the players decide the game.

This is indisputable.

 

[Big Sexy]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/2011-05-04/rules-committee-recommends-change

Here are some highlights from the article:

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

"We want to be clear on the language so no one is confused,” Brey said. “The reason we used intentional last year was to increase the penalty. It didn’t have anything to do with intent.”

 

[Slyfox696]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/2011-05-04/rules-committee-recommends-change

Here are some highlights from the article:

A) The intent determines whether to call it flagrant or personal, after it is decided the foul is not excessive. What was likely happening is some stupid referees were saying "Well he intended to foul to stop the clock, so that's an intentional foul". I've actually seen this happen, in a state championship basketball game, no less. So that's most likely the reason they changed the wording, and also explains your article.

B) What is said in an interview before a rule is adopted will always take the backseat to the actual wording of the rulebook, which uses the word "incidental". By it's very definition, incidental contact implies intent of the player. For all intents and purposes, incidental can just as easily be a synonym for accidental.

C) There was no swinging of the elbows in this case, so your article is worthless to us anyways.

D) You have not disputed the only reason Craft's hands were at Robinson's face was because Robinson raised the ball above his head. The rule, as I previously posted, very clearly says non-excessive incidental contact to the head is a judgment call, and it is not an automatic flagrant 1. Which means it is up to the referee to decide why it happened, and in that, they are to determine the intent of the player.

Which they did, and which is why it wasn't a flagrant.


You are 100% wrong, in every way, on this. The referees called the Craft foul correctly, according to the rules, and did NOT call the foul at the end of the game like they should have, according to the rules.

 

[Big Sexy]

If a player with the ball raises his arms up and makes a swinging motion, his intent is to create space between himself and the defender. However, sometimes by doing that the elbow or forearm will catch the defender in the face. The offensive players "intent" was not to hit the defender in the face by swinging his arms, but his "intent" is irrelevant in that situation because he would still get hit with a flagrant foul. Craft's intent was to just foul Robinson as quickly as possible but he still did hit Robinson in the face. If that happens at the end of the first half because the defensive team has a foul to give and they want to interrupt a set play, then that likely would have been called a flagrant foul.

The word incidental is only used in the NCAA rule book passage that you posted when talking about whether a player swung his elbow or not when contact was made. If two players are going up for a rebound and the elbow of one player accidentally strikes the other, then that can be considered incidental because there was no motion with the elbow towards the player. Craft intentionally swung his arm at Robinson to foul him so while the contact to the face may have been incidental that is irrelevant because the swinging motion itself towards Robinson was done on purpose.

 

[Megatron]

I'd chalk it up to Big 10 shoddy officiating. The whole game, really. They'll let you get away with murder before they blow the whistle some times, and others they'll call every ticky tack bump. This game appeared to be of the former.

 

[Big Sexy]

Exactly. There were only 20 total fouls called in the game last night and there were plenty of questionable/bad calls on both ends throughout. The officiating was poor and lenient, but it was the same poor and lenient officiating for the whole night.

 

[Slyfox696]

If a player with the ball raises his arms up and makes a swinging motion, his intent is to create space between himself and the defender. However, sometimes by doing that the elbow or forearm will catch the defender in the face. The offensive players "intent" was not to hit the defender in the face by swinging his arms, but his "intent" is irrelevant in that situation because he would still get hit with a flagrant foul. Craft's intent was to just foul Robinson as quickly as possible but he still did hit Robinson in the face. If that happens at the end of the first half because the defensive team has a foul to give and they want to interrupt a set play, then that likely would have been called a flagrant foul.

The word incidental is only used in the NCAA rule book passage that you posted when talking about whether a player swung his elbow or not when contact was made. If two players are going up for a rebound and the elbow of one player accidentally strikes the other, then that can be considered incidental because there was no motion with the elbow towards the player. Craft intentionally swung his arm at Robinson to foul him so while the contact to the face may have been incidental that is irrelevant because the swinging motion itself towards Robinson was done on purpose.

You are seriously fucking stupid. I don't know how many different ways I can explain the same thing. Whether it's your bias towards Michigan or the fact you're just seriously fucking stupid, I can't say, but I'm done trying to explain facts to someone who is clearly not interested in them.

You're wrong. I've explained how you're wrong on several different occasions, I've even shown you the rule book which says you are wrong. If it hasn't sunk in yet, then it's your own damn fault.

EDIT: Because I love basketball (playing and coaching) and teaching so much, I'll try one more time. If it should be an automatic flagrant, as you claim, why is it they didn't call it a flagrant, even after reviewing it on the monitors? Are you trying to say the referees took several minutes to review the play and said, "Nah, we're not going to follow the rule book this time"?

Exactly. There were only 20 total fouls called in the game last night and there were plenty of questionable/bad calls on both ends throughout. The officiating was poor and lenient, but it was the same poor and lenient officiating for the whole night.

So...poor officiating makes it okay they cost Ohio State the game? I just want you to clarify...are you saying because they were supposedly poor all the game, it's okay they decided the game in the last seconds?

Please clarify for me.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm saying that there were multiple bad calls in the game. You can't point to the last bad call and say that alone cost them the game because there were multiple bad calls/no calls in the game that could have affected the game differently making it so it never came down to a last second shot. Unless you want to break down the entire game and ream the officials for every bad call/no call then shut the fuck up because no game in the history of basketball has ever or will ever be officiated perfectly.

And the reason they didn't call it a flagrant was because they didn't want it to decide the game. Your bullshit about "intent" being the reason is a load of crap. If intent was supposed to come into to play then why the fuck was this called a flagrant?

[YOUTUBE]-52Q2BrhmPM[/YOUTUBE]

It's because, as I showed earlier, incidental contact is not part of the rule when a player makes any type of swinging motion with his arms towards a defender. Craft didn't intend to hit Robinson in the face but he did swing his arm at Robinson. The Purdue player didn't intent to have his triceps graze the defender in the above video, but he did make a swinging motion and he did make very limited contact with the defenders face. The officials in that game, unlike this one, didn't just let the players decide the game and they called a flagrant one. Because of that call Villanova won a game they probably should have lost.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm saying that there were multiple bad calls in the game. You can't point to the last bad call and say that alone cost them the game because there were multiple bad calls/no calls in the game that could have affected the game differently making it so it never came down to a last second shot. Unless you want to break down the entire game and ream the officials for every bad call/no call then shut the fuck up because no game in the history of basketball has ever or will ever be officiated perfectly.

And the reason they didn't call it a flagrant was because they didn't want it to decide the game. Your bullshit about "intent" being the reason is a load of crap. If intent was supposed to come into to play then why the fuck was this called a flagrant?

[YOUTUBE]-52Q2BrhmPM[/YOUTUBE]

It's because, as I showed earlier, incidental contact is not part of the rule when a player makes any type of swinging motion with his arms towards a defender. Craft didn't intend to hit Robinson in the face but he did swing his arm at Robinson. The Purdue player didn't intent to have his triceps graze the defender in the above video, but he did make a swinging motion and he did make very limited contact with the defenders face. The officials in that game, unlike this one, didn't just let the players decide the game and they called a flagrant one. Because of that call Villanova won a game they probably should have lost.

Wow, so your proof that intent isn't part of it is because the referees fucked up royally in a case where an offensive player who was getting fouled didn't even make contact with the opposing player, or at worst, brushed him the hair on his arm? Not to mention the fact this player wasn't swinging his arms nor was the contact excessive. Your video is a case of terrible officiating, though it doesn't surprise me you weren't knowledgeable enough to recognize it. For fuck's sake, that shouldn't have even been an offensive foul, much less a flagrant offensive foul.

I rest my case regarding your stupidity. Here's something you should remember. If we're arguing basketball, you should stop. Because I know a whole hell of a lot more about it than you do, which has been made obvious once more. Do yourself a favor and quit embarrassing yourself on things you clearly know so very little about.

And the reason they didn't call it a flagrant was because they didn't want it to decide the game.

So the referees just get to make up rules now, according to you? Is that what you're saying? The referees don't have to go by the rule book anymore? They didn't make the call a flagrant because they understood the game situation and they knew Craft was attempting to go for the ball and the situation just happened to be the ball moved as Craft was going for the ball while trying to stop the clock. They understood Craft's intent was not to hit someone in the head, but rather make a play for the ball.

You've lost. Badly. Just admit defeat and move on.

 

[Slyfox696]

On a less stupid, and far more entertaining note, TCU defeated Kansas tonight. This is the second loss in a row for Kansas. This makes me happy.

 

[Big Sexy]

You're an idiot. I've provided direct quotes from the head chair of the NCAA rules committee, as well as video evidence that intent is not part of the rule. You, like always, are the one who needs to admit defeat.

 

[Slyfox696]

Holy shit, what an ending to the Indiana vs. Illinois game. It was an ending I even voluntarily stayed after work to watch. And #1 goes down again.

Crazy.

I've provided direct quotes from the head chair of the NCAA rules committee

Yes, before the rule was implemented. I've proved direct quotes from the rulebook, which the referees are required to go by.

as well as video evidence that intent is not part of the rule.

Hey, hey...watch this.

In the NFL, if the defense catches the ball, the offense should be awarded a touchdown. Why? Because I have video evidence which says so.


Makes as much sense as what you're saying. The fact you're using an example of a horrendously bad call to justify your argument shows just how delusional you are.

And that's not taking into account how you keep constantly ignoring the points I make which you cannot respond to.

You, like always, are the one who needs to admit defeat.

What I find to be the most sad about this debate is I think you honestly believe the stupid things you're saying. It never ceases to amaze me how people wrap themselves in the cocoon of their ignorance.

Anyways, I'm done with your idiocy. Write your next biased post so you feel better about yourself. I'll rep you again, so I'll feel better about myself. And of course, only one of us will be right, and considering the referees actually stopped the game to review the play and didn't call it a flagrant, I feel quite comfortable that person is me.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm glad you are comparing a group of replacement officials who didn't even agree on the final call, to an NCAA officiating crew who all viewed the replay and all agreed a flagrant should be called by the letter of the rule, ignoring intent. And your direct quote from the rule book did nothing to support your claim as I have already broken down.


Back to actual relevant basketball discussion. Illinois defeating Indiana tonight goes to show how tough the Big Ten is this season and how tough it is to pick up road wins in the conference. Parity seems to be at an all time high in not just the Big Ten, but division 1 basketball as a whole.

 

[Megatron]

Michigan getting humbled on the road again. Love it. Most complete game by Sparty all year.

 

[Big Sexy]

Worst game of the season by far for Michigan on both ends. At the end of the day, however, it is a mostly meaningless game in the middle of February. It hurts their chances at a regular season conference championship but that's about it. A similar thing happened to Duke earlier this year at Miami when they lost by 28 and they bounced back just fine.

 

[Megatron]

You wouldn't be saying its meaningless if they won, but alright. I still think IU will win the conference (partly because MSU's schedule has a rough 4 ranked teams in a row stretch coming up) but MSU made a huge statement today.

 

[Big Sexy]

I said mostly meaningless because it is. Other then the regular season conference championship this one game has very little bearing on anything else. Bad games happen, especially with young teams on the road. It always sucks to lose a rivalry game but they play again in Ann Arbor in 3 weeks so there's still a chance at redemption in that aspect. If Michigan won it would have been a great rivalry win on the road but it still would have been meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Slyfox696]

I didn't watch the game, so I can't speak intelligently on how it played out, but it did not surprise me one bit to see Michigan State win this game and so easily.

 

[Megatron]

Considering most teams main goal is a conference championship (since there's obviously only 1 overall winner) I'd say this was a relatively important game for UM. Moreso for State because of their brutal stretch coming up after Nebraska, but UM being down 2 to IU and MSU will hurt. And if Wisconsin holds serve they may only drop another game as well. By the time their game comes at the end of the year it may not even matter in terms of the conference race. As much as you want to think it should be national championship or bust, conference championships are program builders.

EDIT: Sly, I know I sound like I have the guys shaft in my mouth, but it continues to amaze me how Izzo's squads always improve from the beginning of the year to the end. I always think this will be the year it doesn't work out that he schedules these tough OOC games but (for the most part) he shows me wrong. Just great to see that he'll be a Spartan till the day he retires (which hopefully will still be a while from now).

 

[Slyfox696]

Considering most teams main goal is a conference championship (since there's obviously only 1 overall winner) I'd say this was a relatively important game for UM. Moreso for State because of their brutal stretch coming up after Nebraska, but UM being down 2 to IU and MSU will hurt. And if Wisconsin holds serve they may only drop another game as well. By the time their game comes at the end of the year it may not even matter in terms of the conference race. As much as you want to think it should be national championship or bust, conference championships are program builders.

EDIT: Sly, I know I sound like I have the guys shaft in my mouth, but it continues to amaze me how Izzo's squads always improve from the beginning of the year to the end. I always think this will be the year it doesn't work out that he schedules these tough OOC games but (for the most part) he shows me wrong. Just great to see that he'll be a Spartan till the day he retires (which hopefully will still be a while from now).

I've believed for a long time that Tom Izzo is truly one of the great coaches in college basketball. Back when I still filled out tournament brackets, I always started with two things in mind. 1) Duke in the Sweet Sixteen and 2) Always give Michigan State the edge. Those two things are as sure as you can find in March Madness.

 

[Big Sexy]

Considering most teams main goal is a conference championship (since there's obviously only 1 overall winner) I'd say this was a relatively important game for UM. Moreso for State because of their brutal stretch coming up after Nebraska, but UM being down 2 to IU and MSU will hurt. And if Wisconsin holds serve they may only drop another game as well. By the time their game comes at the end of the year it may not even matter in terms of the conference race. As much as you want to think it should be national championship or bust, conference championships are program builders..

When you have a team good enough to win it all, your main goal is a National Championship. Conference titles are great and definitely program builders but Michigan just won a conference title last year, and not winning one this year would be completely forgotten if they make a final four run. Besides, it's not like this ends their chances at a conference title. They are two games back but they still get to play both MSU and IU at home before the season is over. Other then those two they will be heavily favored in every other game left on their schedule. Michigan just finished the toughest part of their schedule while MSU is just starting theirs next week. Indiana also still has 4 games left against tournament teams with 3 of those being on the road.

 

[Megatron]

I'm not sure UM is good enough to win it all. Weak OOC hid the fact that you can pound them inside offensively and defensively they rely on the 3. They don't drive enough to get to the line and once they get into the tournament and get past the first weekend they'll get teams that will not let them run and take away their 3 game. They are still a young team which makes me think when the lights start getting brighter and brighter they'll fold.

EDIT: And this loss almost forces UM to win out. While they could since their tough games are at home and they only have 2 real big games left, they still have 3 teams to jump.