Question on Cam's flagrant
- Thread starter Babydoc
- Start date
Because it was ruled a Flagrant 1 which means they get 2 fouls shots plus ball. It is like what used to be called a technical foul or intentional foul from the past. Therefore, anyone from the team can shoot those.
The sad part about it is the call can be reversed if the video disproves what they thought they had seen. In this case, however, the decided the video was inconclusive (so they say) so they kept the call.
AdaSooner
Admin Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 16,092
- Reaction score
- 83
It was part of OU's master plan to stick it to the Pokes: Put a high percentage free throw shooter like Forte on the line and hope he would choke. Too bad it didn't work out.
Seriously, opsooner's explanation is correct. The flagrant one is essentially a techical foul. The officials review any perceived contact to the face or head now.
We can thank Longer Longer for that. He started it. lol
Well, unfortunately, I think LL's would have been a Flagrant 2 by today's rules.
MsProudSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,937
- Reaction score
- 389
fify
Seemed to me the most telling argument that Cam didn't make contact AT ALL was that, when he was supposedly struck, Nash acted like he was hit in the nose by his right eye - but when he was nursing his injury after the fact it was his chin on the left side... tough to keep it straight sometimes.
Must have been a lone gunman on a grassy knoll...
Must have been a lone gunman on a grassy knoll...
mict085
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,050
- Reaction score
- 1,918
Yes it was. He didn't even touch him. I can't believe what the game has deteriorated into. It was clear on the replay he didn't touch him and it was a flop. OU should've been awarded 2 FTs and possession for such an obvious fake.
StatGeek
New member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,946
- Reaction score
- 0
Cams shoulder hit him in the chin when he went up for the shot after the "elbow". First time in history a shoulder to the chin hurt worse than a elbow to the face.
skyvue
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 8,611
- Reaction score
- 1,411
And yet, Fran Fraschilla insisted to the bitter end that it was a good call.
MsProudSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,937
- Reaction score
- 389
I watched the replay on FoxSportsOK last night. They obviously edit the broadcast to fit their time slot. Interestingly enough they only showed one replay of this incident and edited out the comments where one of the commentators disagreed with the call.
Flopping is becoming a play in college basketball now. osu is definitely working on perfecting that play!
AdaSooner
Admin Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 16,092
- Reaction score
- 83
Exactly. Still don't believe it was a flop? Check out the timing of Nash's reaction to Cam's elbow. The elbow had clearly passed the point where it had supposedly connected with Nash's chin when he fell to the floor as if he had been knocked down.
However, if in the official's judgement Cam's swinging of his elbows was excessive, I have to agree. He went beyond a reasonable basketball move by pivoting to gain space, and he did it twice, which also fits the definition of excessive. Still, assuming I'm correct in that Cam's elbow did not make contact with Nash's chin, the officials had the option of calling it a violation, instead of a flagrant one technical. In other words, excessive swinging of the elbow can be viewed as a violation that simply turns the ball over to the other team, similar to a traveling call.
This SI article by Seth Davis does a good job of explaining the rule point by point. What I don't know is if the rule has been changed since the article was written two years ago.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/seth_davis/12/06/hoop.thoughts.officiating/index.html
EDIT: Oketex, a longtime member of this board, officiated in college for years. Maybe he can weigh in on this topic and correct me if I'm wrong about the option of calling what Cam did a violation.
Last edited:
DenverSooner
New member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 11,099
- Reaction score
- 0
Something I was thinking when watching this live is why does the defender get that space? Clearly the defender is moving his body. He is leaning in, leaning left, leaning right, and possibly even shuffling his feet. In other words he is not set. Given that 90% of the time the defender is not set, why isn't it a blocking foul? I get that it has never been called that way but under the rules, I think it is actually a blocking call not an offensive foul unless the defender is set.
With respect to the call I am not certain what happened. If Nash was acting he did a really good job because he moved very quickly to when the contact "occurred" and had a very realistic flinch. At the same time, I couldn't really see the contact on the video and I couldn't see the non-contact on the video. To me the video was inconclusive.
I think the rule needs to be changed to where a play like that is just a loss of possession. Two shots and the ball is a big turn of events in a close game. The defender should not be allowed to get so into the offensive players space that he cannot even move without drawing contact unless they plan on calling the foul on the defensive player.
People prefer high scoring games so the officials should call the games to encourage point production. As much as I liked Sampson and respected Sutton, I think their style of defense was bad for the Big XII. The old Big 8 days with Tubbs, Hamilton, Norm Stewart, Johnny Orr, etc. were more exciting.
With respect to the call I am not certain what happened. If Nash was acting he did a really good job because he moved very quickly to when the contact "occurred" and had a very realistic flinch. At the same time, I couldn't really see the contact on the video and I couldn't see the non-contact on the video. To me the video was inconclusive.
I think the rule needs to be changed to where a play like that is just a loss of possession. Two shots and the ball is a big turn of events in a close game. The defender should not be allowed to get so into the offensive players space that he cannot even move without drawing contact unless they plan on calling the foul on the defensive player.
People prefer high scoring games so the officials should call the games to encourage point production. As much as I liked Sampson and respected Sutton, I think their style of defense was bad for the Big XII. The old Big 8 days with Tubbs, Hamilton, Norm Stewart, Johnny Orr, etc. were more exciting.
I'd also like to hear from Oketex.
I did not know about the excessive move with no contact part. What if you make an excessive move when there is no one within 10 feet of you?
Regardless, he points out in the article that is not a Flagrant 1 because he indicated there would be no foul called and no free throws in that case - only change of possession. The Flagrant 1 was called in this case.
I believe the Flagrant 1 rule says that you can even make slight contact if the move is not excessive - no Flagrant 1 in this case. However, once called they can overrule it (assuming the team still has a timeout) via replay.
The issue here was that the wrong ref called it and they decided they did not have clear enough evidence to overturn it. I thought the camera underneath the basket made it pretty clear (but not perfectly clear). I agree with Ada that the reaction time was clearly a flop but I suppose that is not enough to overturn it either.
I wonder if they could have reduced it to the excessive move with no contact and just given them the ball with no free throws.
I did not know about the excessive move with no contact part. What if you make an excessive move when there is no one within 10 feet of you?
Regardless, he points out in the article that is not a Flagrant 1 because he indicated there would be no foul called and no free throws in that case - only change of possession. The Flagrant 1 was called in this case.
I believe the Flagrant 1 rule says that you can even make slight contact if the move is not excessive - no Flagrant 1 in this case. However, once called they can overrule it (assuming the team still has a timeout) via replay.
The issue here was that the wrong ref called it and they decided they did not have clear enough evidence to overturn it. I thought the camera underneath the basket made it pretty clear (but not perfectly clear). I agree with Ada that the reaction time was clearly a flop but I suppose that is not enough to overturn it either.
I wonder if they could have reduced it to the excessive move with no contact and just given them the ball with no free throws.
Last edited:
AdaSooner
Admin Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 16,092
- Reaction score
- 83
I agree with you. But, unless the rule has changed in the last couple of years, the officials already have the option of calling it a violation instead of a flagrant one.
If the contact was clear, which from my perspective it was not, why didn't the baseline official make the call? He had the best view of what took place. The trail official was blocked to a great extent by Cam's body.
Assuming for the sake of argument that his elbow brushed Nash's chin, the underneath official was the only one who could say that for sure, and he didn't blow his whistle. As you said, there is no conclusive video evidence to prove it one way or the other.
If the officials ruled that a fragrant one was the right call because the swinging of the elbow was excessive, I get that.
This type of defense is going to be taught more and more as any elbow contact above the shoulders is going to get whistled for this. You simply can't "rip through" that high. If you're going to rip through and create space you've got to do it below the shoulders of the defender.
My issue with this is if it is a foul why isn't the person who was fouled shooting the free throws? If it is an intentional foul the person who is intentionally fouled shoots. Why is this foul any different?
My issue with this is if it is a foul why isn't the person who was fouled shooting the free throws? If it is an intentional foul the person who is intentionally fouled shoots. Why is this foul any different?
AdaSooner
Admin Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 16,092
- Reaction score
- 83
opsooner answered that question earlier. A fragrant one is not an intentional foul. It's a technical foul with a fancy name that is penalized the same way: anyone on the team shoots the free throws, with the ball out of bounds as part of the penalty.
I agree that this type of defense will, and already is, being taught by every college coach in the country. I believe that's exactly what happened in this instance. Nash didn't react to the first swiing of the elbow, it alerted him to be ready for the next time Cam swung his elbow, which resulted in a flop that Travis Ford had drilled into his players in practice. And who can blame him? IMO, that's good coaching.
If the spirit of the rule is to protect players from blows to the head or face, I'm all for that. You're right in that players need to be taught to keep their elbows below the neck level when clearing out. But when a loophole in the rule allows coaches and players to use it as a tool to gain an advantage, changes need to be made to prevent it.
UHsurfer12
New member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
Anybody have a video clip of it? I missed it.
