evilleman wrote:pafan wrote:JohnU wrote:They seem confused and spend wayyyyyyyy too much time reviewing their version of the 'flagrant' foul, a term that has me lost because falling on top of somebody doesn't merit 5 minutes of TV review to determine if the guy did it intentionally (the real definition of 'flagrant.')
Intentional was the original definition of "flagrant". But the NCAA rules committee removed "intent" from the definition several years ago. In part because every foul could arguably be intentional. e.g. guy reaches in at the top of the after being faked out on D is clearly intentional, but not flagrant.
The rules package could use some work. Especially annoying to me is the "principle of verticality" which seems to be extremely inconsistent. And as you reference, the video review needs to be reeled in.
I'm an NBA guy and I love the vertically rule. I hated watching college ball when a guy would drive the lane and jump into a defender and get 2 shots.
On one of DC's so-called fouls he was standing with his arms straight above his head. He did not move them while the driver thrust himself into them. DC did what he was taught to do within the rules and paid the price for it. It seems that when you raise your arms straight above with feet planted on the floor all you are doing is giving the driver a beneficial target to aim at and an easier view for the ref to see that arms contacted arms. Considering how often fouls are called on this, maybe a better strategy is to quickly leap and swat if for no other reason than to give the refs less time to decide.