Wichita State at Illinois State

[BSSFan#1]

Wichita State or Creighton? Ugh, can't stand either one. What is the lesser of two evils?

[tornado]

I have heard a couple arguments that the "Flagrant" call was completely unintentional and was thus bogus..

but......intention is not relevant --- of course any call can be a bad call - and maybe this was - but whether or not there was INTENT is NOT currently part of the rule!

I am sure the refs among us can amplify - a MAJOR point of emphasis in NCAA D-I this year is for refs
to REVIEW any play where there's contact above the shoulder - intentional or not..
generally this gets presumed to be elbows but it can be anything - in this case it was Carmichael's foot.

If the refs feel that the act was totally unavoidable and not excessive then no penalty --
but if there was ANY action by the offending player that could have been avoided - it is a Flagrant 1 (if contact was not "excessive")
- and if it appears to have been intentional or excessive then Flagrant 2.


BUT everyone agrees that the way these new rules are being interpreted has been inconsistent - and here's a column where Tom Izzo says the calls need to be cleaned up...

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2012/11/michigan_states_tom_izzo_says_5.html

[mvcfan]

One of the biggest problem is the use of the monitor. The monitor, I think should only be used to figure out last second shots and whether it was a three or two. The games drag on now because they stop the game and look at everything. In the end its still an interpretation and the more they look at it the more common sense doesn't win out.

[Da Coach]

For those who haven't seen the play, here is the replay of the entire game (I can't find just highlights). The play occurs 2 hours and 9 minutes into the video. Fast forward to 2:09:00-

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/758889/size/condensed/

And the NCAA rule regarding contact above the shoulders is not just assumed to be from an elbow, it is actually stated in the rule that it relates specifically to elbows. A Flagrant 1 foul was called, and I am not sure I see how the officials applied this rule in last night's game, since there was no elbow involved.

Here is the rule directly from the NCAA rule book-
Flagrant 1 foul- (2 shots and the ball)
Not a legitimate play on the ball
Hold or push from behind
Illegal elbow above the shoulders

Flagrant 2 foul- (2 shots and ball, plus automatic ejection)
Excessive contact during live ball
Excessive contact during dead ball
Extreme/vulgar/abusive conduct

[BSSFan#1]

Contact above the shoulders! Carmichael's foot contacted the opponent's chest, not head or neck.

[Chico]

Contact above the shoulders! Carmichael's foot contacted the opponent's chest, not head or neck.

Just watched it on yahoo. Have to say it was only to the upper chest, but it also looked intentional to me.

[OrangeandBlack74]

For those who haven't seen the play, here is the replay of the entire game (I can't find just highlights). The play occurs 2 hours and 9 minutes into the video. Fast forward to 2:09:00-

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/758889/size/condensed/

Here's the play from Deadspin...the video is embedded in the article.

http://deadspin.com/jackie-carmichael/

[tornado]

same rule as soccer - dangerous play - the foot was very aggressively used by Carmichael -
Carmichael's foot was used very aggressively as if he was using it to keep any challenging player at bay...

Obviously the intent is clear - to limit aggressive contact above the shoulders that may harm a player - so the refs called it based on their judgement - after all, aren't all fouls called base on judgement - they are judgement calls and technicals are judgement calls..
I suspect the NCAA will back the refs on this one.....

[Da Coach]

Not correct- This is the NCAA, not soccer. In soccer, the officials are given the right to make a judgement call about dangerous play. In the NCAA rulebook, the rule regarding Flagrant fouls specifically states it must be an elbow and must make contact with the other player.

From the NCAA-
“Effective with the 2010-11 season, more than incidental contact above the shoulders with the elbow must be a minimum of an intentional foul. If the contact with the elbow is deemed to be a result of excessive swinging of the elbows, the penalty will continue to be a flagrant foul regardless of the area contacted.”

[mvcfan]

Pretty sure the guy who got kicked was not the one that shot the free throws either. Which by the rule is not correct. It was Pollard doing the game so the whole game was officiated poorly. You were watching and waiting for him to put his stamp on the game somehow.

[Bravesfan]

Here is the rule directly from the NCAA rule book-
Flagrant 1 foul- (2 shots and the ball)
Not a legitimate play on the ball
Hold or push from behind
Illegal elbow above the shoulders

Correct. It wasn't whether it was intentional. Regardless, it was still illegal. That's why this foul was called in the first place.

[Old Coach]

I don't ever like Pollard doing a Bradley game, but I'd really hate it if it was on ESPN.

[Chico]

Pretty sure the guy who got kicked was not the one that shot the free throws either. Which by the rule is not correct. It was Pollard doing the game so the whole game was officiated poorly. You were watching and waiting for him to put his stamp on the game somehow.

Usually don't comment on officiating. I didn't know who Pollard was until last Saturday. I have to agree, he is bad.

[Da Coach]

Pretty sure the guy who got kicked was not the one that shot the free throws either. Which by the rule is not correct. It was Pollard doing the game so the whole game was officiated poorly. You were watching and waiting for him to put his stamp on the game somehow.

Yes, you are absolutely correct- the officials blew this big time. They called a Flagrant 1 foul on Jackie Carmichael, not a technical foul. And they did not even call the foul initially, only after the next stoppage of play when Gregg Marshall complained and asked for the video review.
Here is the official box score from the MVC website, and clearly it states there were no technical fouls called in the game-

http://www.mvc.org/mbb/stats/WSU-ILS.HTM

The player who was fouled was Tekele Cotton, who incidentally is a 58.6% free throw shooter. He should have shot the free throws. Instead, they allowed Gregg Marshall to pick who he wanted to shoot them, as if it was a technical foul. He selected Cleanthony Early, who is the best free throw shooter on the team at 80.5%, and he made both free throws.

I believe there were multiple mistakes made- The officials called a Flagrant 1 foul, and this foul does not fit under the definition of a Flagrant 1 foul. It kight have been possible to call it a Flagrant 2 foul, but that is not what they called. A Flagrant 2 would have required ejection, which did not happen.
Then then they mistakenly enforced the free throws as if it was a technical foul, which was another error.

[mvcfan]

Coaches fighting in the tunnel. Wow it could get interesting. Jans a former ISU assistant was getting into it with fans. Dana Ford left WSU to take the ISU job storylines all over the place. Also some very close games over the years could lead to an all out battle in the LOU.