Review of film for flagrant foul

#1

Ancient Reptile

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
837
Likes
74
#1
This must be MOM so I apologize in advance, but I can't find it on the board. Last night in the UK game, according to the tv announcers, a UT player with the ball swung it side-to-side and passed. A moment later a different foul was called. Calipari claimed a swinging the elbows foul and the officials reviewed the tape, agreed with Calipari, and awarded the flagrant foul. My question is: When can a coach request a review of the tape for a foul and are the refs compelled to grant the request?

Again, sorry if this is covered elsewhere; just point me to it.
 
#2
#2
You can probably search youtube for flagrant 1 on Mcbee and find it. Bottom line is Crylipari got his way.
 
#3
#3
Any play involving a flagrant type foul is reviewable. Also any play that involves a player throwing an elbow or throwing a punch can be reviewed to determine the severity and to identify the offending parties if need be.
 
#4
#4
Any play involving a flagrant type foul is reviewable. Also any play that involves a player throwing an elbow or throwing a punch can be reviewed to determine the severity and to identify the offending parties if need be.

Thank you. That is exactly what I wanted to know. If there is no further UT interest in this thread, the mods may want to delete it. Again, thanks.
 
#5
#5
I didn't know you could pass a play after another foul had been called and then go back to the past foul and review the first one and also not call the second. Someone enlighten me please?
 
#6
#6
What pissed me off is that the KY player was reaching in, made some contact, and McBee didn't have room to bring the ball around without catching him on the chin. IMO, that's a defensive reach or a no call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8
#8
If you guys remember, they tagged Kentucky for a flagrant 1, also. Neither the Mays nor the Colonel McBee flagrants were malicious in any way. It's just the way the rules are.
 
#9
#9
I didn't know you could pass a play after another foul had been called and then go back to the past foul and review the first one and also not call the second. Someone enlighten me please?

Frequently, the officials didn't see the elbow and are not going to just stop play willy-nilly to check the monitor for no reason. Then at the next dead ball they are alerted to the situation by the player or coach and go to the monitors. The officials are supposed to check the monitor in ANY case of contact above the shoulders. This has been a rule emphasis since at least last season if not before. It can be immediate or at the next dead ball if appropriate (in this case it was because the officials didn't realize the elbow until it was pointed out to them).

The officials' handling of this episode last night was 100% by the book and well done. The rest of the officiating, I would not say that about.
 
#10
#10
If you guys remember, they tagged Kentucky for a flagrant 1, also. Neither the Mays nor the Colonel McBee flagrants were malicious in any way. It's just the way the rules are.

Completely correct. Any elbow contact above the shoulders from a swinging elbow is a flagrant 1 by rule. The intent does not matter for that call. If it is deemed to be intentional or malicious, it is ruled a flagrant 2 and comes with automatic ejection and suspension. Thems the rules.

I think it's a good rule too. It has cut down on the wild swinging of elbows. This used to be an acceptable way to clear space. It was also an acceptable way to rock people's brains into submission. Now coaches and players are being trained in different and much less dangerous ways to clear space and everyone's brains are a little happier.
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
Completely correct. Any elbow contact above the shoulders from a swinging elbow is a flagrant 1 by rule. The intent does not matter for that call. If it is deemed to be intentional or malicious, it is ruled a flagrant 2 and comes with automatic ejection and suspension. Thems the rules.

I think it's a good rule too. It has cut down on the wild swinging of elbows. This used to be an acceptable way to clear space. It was also an acceptable way to rock people's brains into submission. Now coaches and players are being trained in different and much less dangerous ways to clear space and everyone's brains are a little happier.

Rule sucks. Offensive player still has right to space directly in front of him and it gives the defense an easy out. Basically, it helps the defense. The officials could still call a flagrant if they deem it malicious. But in both cases last night, the defensive players were bumping the offensive player as the elbows were turned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14
#14
The one thing I don't like about the rule is the retroactive nature of it. In the McBee case, a foul was called on Harrow prior to the review. It should have been Tennessee's ball side court. Instead, they reviewed the play and awarded UK two shots and the ball. So, in that instance, it cost Tennessee a possession.

In the Mays incident, a foul was immediately called on Mays, the play was reviewed and Tennessee shot two foul shots and was given possession, which they had already been awarded by virtue of the foul call on Mays.

I think the rule should be changed to return possession to the flow of the game, especially if the play is reviewed retroactively. In other words, after they reviewed McBee's elbow, UK should have gotten to shoot two FTs, but possession should have returned to Tennessee because it was our ball when play was stopped to review by virtue of the foul call on Harrow.
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
The one thing I don't like about the rule is the retroactive nature of it. In the McBee case, a foul was called on Harrow prior to the review. It should have been Tennessee's ball side court. Instead, they reviewed the play and awarded UK two shots and the ball. So, in that instance, it cost Tennessee a possession.

In the Mays incident, a foul was immediately called on Mays, the play was reviewed and Tennessee shot two foul shots and was given possession, which they had already been awarded by virtue of the foul call on Mays.

I think the rule should be changed to return possession to the flow of the game, especially if the play is reviewed retroactively. In other words, after they reviewed McBee's elbow, UK should have gotten to shoot two FTs, but possession should have returned to Tennessee because it was our ball when play was stopped to review by virtue of the foul call on Harrow.

The calls last night is pussifying the game. Because players know they can draw flagrant 1's now, they body up right next to them hoping they catch a glancing elbow. I've seen harder contact in a damn middle school game. If they're going to allow the defender to crowd the ball handler especially as he's making his move then they need to readdress the dumb rule.

What pissed me off is that Cal got the refs to stop play and review something they didn't see and I doubt you'd ever see Martin do that. He needs to work the officials more.
 
#16
#16
The calls last night is pussifying the game. Because players know they can draw flagrant 1's now, they body up right next to them hoping they catch a glancing elbow. I've seen harder contact in a damn middle school game. If they're going to allow the defender to crowd the ball handler especially as he's making his move then they need to readdress the dumb rule.

What pissed me off is that Cal got the refs to stop play and review something they didn't see and I doubt you'd ever see Martin do that. He needs to work the officials more.

He does need to work them more. I just don't think its his personality. I'm not sure he has much personality. Did you hear his interview during the timeout? Geez. Talk about stale. I don't know what he sells kids and parents on in the living room, but it sure isn't his charm and wit. He seems sub-Saharan dry to me every time I hear him speak.
 
#17
#17
He does need to work them more. I just don't think its his personality. I'm not sure he has much personality. Did you hear his interview during the timeout? Geez. Talk about stale. I don't know what he sells kids and parents on in the living room, but it sure isn't his charm and wit. He seems sub-Saharan dry to me every time I hear him speak.

I think he's very down to earth and seems shy by nature. He seems to always have his guard up and probably only lets certain people really get to know him. He's such a contrast to Pearl that it is taking awhile to get used to him.

He's still learning on the job. This year has tested him as a coach with the injuries. You find out more and more about a coach after roster and staff changes. You have to evolve or you'll get left behind. He needs to do well next year for his own sake or the buzzards will be out in full force.
 
#18
#18
I didn't get how the foul coil was reversed. It was on Harrow, instead after review a flagrant 1 and personal foul were on mcbee. Didn't think you were able to reverse that.
 
#19
#19
I didn't get how the foul coil was reversed. It was on Harrow, instead after review a flagrant 1 and personal foul were on mcbee. Didn't think you were able to reverse that.

I think Harrow still got the personal foul, but the flagrant overrules the regular foul so that is why they got 2 shots and the ball back. That turned the game in Ky's favor. We went from being up 3 to down by 6.
 
#20
#20
I think Harrow still got the personal foul, but the flagrant overrules the regular foul so that is why they got 2 shots and the ball back. That turned the game in Ky's favor. We went from being up 3 to down by 6.

You sure? I may be wrong, but thought Mcbee only had 1 and that gave him 3.
 
#21
#21
You sure? I may be wrong, but thought Mcbee only had 1 and that gave him 3.

I thought I heard Nessler say that Harrow still got a personal.

I checked the play-by-play and they had Harrow with a foul. I'll see if I can cut and paste it and see what it looks like.

FOUL by Harrow, Ryan (P1T3) 08:13
08:13 FOUL by McBee, Skylar (P2T2)
SUB IN : Mays, Julius 08:13 SUB IN : Moore, Armani
SUB OUT: Poythress, Alex 08:13 SUB IN : Golden, Trae
08:13 SUB OUT: McBee, Skylar
08:13 SUB OUT: Reese, Derek
GOOD! FT SHOT by Harrow, Ryan 08:12 21-19 H 2
MISSED FT SHOT by Harrow, Ryan 08:11


UTSPORTS.COM - University of Tennessee Athletics - Men's Basketball
 
#22
#22
He does need to work them more. I just don't think its his personality. I'm not sure he has much personality. Did you hear his interview during the timeout? Geez. Talk about stale. I don't know what he sells kids and parents on in the living room, but it sure isn't his charm and wit. He seems sub-Saharan dry to me every time I hear him speak.

Obviously, I haven't met the man, but he isn't a ra-ra type of guy. He isn't a drama king. He was raised in a rough area, made it to the highest level, and overcame cancer. He is a fighter and demands effort and responsibility. He is charismatic in that he relates to you but wants players to work- not in the way Pearl was with the media and public.

He really can relate to most player's situations. It really doesn't matter as long as we win games.
 
#23
#23
The one thing I don't like about the rule is the retroactive nature of it. In the McBee case, a foul was called on Harrow prior to the review. It should have been Tennessee's ball side court. Instead, they reviewed the play and awarded UK two shots and the ball. So, in that instance, it cost Tennessee a possession.

In the Mays incident, a foul was immediately called on Mays, the play was reviewed and Tennessee shot two foul shots and was given possession, which they had already been awarded by virtue of the foul call on Mays.

I think the rule should be changed to return possession to the flow of the game, especially if the play is reviewed retroactively. In other words, after they reviewed McBee's elbow, UK should have gotten to shoot two FTs, but possession should have returned to Tennessee because it was our ball when play was stopped to review by virtue of the foul call on Harrow.
So next time Mcbee should just intentionally knock the hell out of him, didn't win anyway!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
This must be MOM so I apologize in advance, but I can't find it on the board. Last night in the UK game, according to the tv announcers, a UT player with the ball swung it side-to-side and passed. A moment later a different foul was called. Calipari claimed a swinging the elbows foul and the officials reviewed the tape, agreed with Calipari, and awarded the flagrant foul. My question is: When can a coach request a review of the tape for a foul and are the refs compelled to grant the request?

Again, sorry if this is covered elsewhere; just point me to it.

Short & simple, Kentucky gets what Kentucky wants from the refs in the SEC. They're either scared of them or the SEC is scared Ky won't make the tournament.
 
#25
#25
Short & simple, Kentucky gets what Kentucky wants from the refs in the SEC. They're either scared of them or the SEC is scared Ky won't make the tournament.

I think I heard on radio that in the history of UK basketball, the longest stretch without making the NCAAT is 3 years. They were on probation the first 2, and Pitino didn't his first year. So, basically, 3 years and they couldn't even go for 2 of those.
 

VN Store



Back
Top