Started By
Message

re: Arkansas-77 Vs. Seton Hall-71 final

Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:41 pm to
Posted by Drewbie
tFlagship
Member since Jun 2012
58115 posts
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:41 pm to
quote:

I do think it was a little bit of a stretch calling it a flagrant 1.
It was a flagrant 1 word for word with the rulebook. Barford was driving the lane and the Hall player shoved him directly forward in the back. That's a tech 1 every time.
Posted by DiafGtfo
Member since Nov 2010
1894 posts
Posted on 3/17/17 at 2:52 pm to
quote:

It was a flagrant 1 word for word with the rulebook. Barford was driving the lane and the Hall player shoved him directly forward in the back. That's a tech 1 every time.


From the rulebook:

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;



By the letter of the rulebook it was a flagrant 1, but I think there is a little bit of interpretation there. The Seton Hall player was out of position on the play and accidentally tripped Barford. That was clear from the replay. It wasn't intentional and you can't call it by the severity of the act. If Barford didn't trip, I don't think they make this call.

I'm not saying that the call is wrong, I'm just saying it's still open to interpretation.

Also, I think the travel by the Seton Hall was more of a clinching play than the foul call.
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 2:58 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter