steverocks35
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 8,131
- Reaction score
- 1,006
The rulebook is vague about flagrant fouls, but (if I'm reading and interpreting this correctly) it's definitely a judgment call and if the contact itself is not severe then it depends on whether or not the official thinks there is 1. intent and/or 2. there is risk of bodily harm to the receiving player. There is obviously no contact to the head or neck area which is emphasized in the rulebook. But, if the ref thinks the player in the air could have been severely harmed then a flagrant could have been given. I think flagrant 1 or common foul here. It doesn't look like he was intentionally trying to undercut the guy. He just backed up like he was trying to block out.
Edited to add: The more I watch it the more intentional it looks. Maybe a flagrant is warranted. Judgment call, but something should have been called.
Edited to add: The more I watch it the more intentional it looks. Maybe a flagrant is warranted. Judgment call, but something should have been called.
Last edited:
