Should the refs have been allowed to overturn the third foul they called on Wyoming's center early

[McNutt76]

in the second half? I thought they were only allowed to do that the last two minutes of the game.

My understanding is they reviewed the play to determine whether Wyoming's center committed a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2. Instead, they changed the call so it was a foul on Race Thompson.

That was a huge call!

 

[IUbball_lifer]

That’s a good question. I think I saw that happen in a conference tournament last week. So apparently it’s allowed. Seems like a double foul might have been a better call, if they were going to change it.

 

[hoquat63]

That’s a good question. I think I saw that happen in a conference tournament last week. So apparently it’s allowed. Seems like a double foul might have been a better call, if they were going to change it.

Yes, Rutgers vs. Iowa - Harper took elbow to the face. When refs checked for flagrant, wound up charging Harper with cylinder violation.

 

[ButHerEmails]

Yes, Rutgers vs. Iowa - Harper took elbow to the face. When refs checked for flagrant, wound up charging Harper with cylinder violation.

Last night is when I found out the cylinder rule applies even if you’re on offense 90 feet from your own basket.

 

[SWINDIANAIUFAN]

That was interesting. I guess the offensive player is allowed to stick his elbow outside the cylinder and clear the player out? That was an offensive foul to me. Go Hoosiers!!!!!!

 

[outside shooter]

That was interesting. I guess the offensive player is allowed to stick his elbow outside the cylinder and clear the player out? That was an offensive foul to me. Go Hoosiers!!!!!!

I guess the fact that the elbow came AFTER the tiny grab made the elbow not count. But it sucks when they review for one purpose and then they discover something that they didn't even see in live action.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

no.

 

[iubirdman]

If they review for flagrant, it is all fair game, which is what they did. They saw the elbow, reviewed to see if it rose to the flagrant levle, and determined that Race was violating the cylinder rule. Totally legal based on the rules, had they reviewed for anything else, they can only review that part--ie if they review for posssession and see a foul they can not call the foul.

 

[Hoosier in SC]

I guess the fact that the elbow came AFTER the tiny grab made the elbow not count. But it sucks when they review for one purpose and then they discover something that they didn't even see in live action.

The question would have been would the call be any different if that elbow would have connected. I believe it would & that would be against the spirit of it, only calling flagrant swinging if someone is hit, knocked out, otherwise all is good. It appeared to me he was swinging with a purpose.

 

[iubirdman]

The question would have been would the call be any different if that elbow would have connected. I believe it would & that would be against the spirit of it, only calling flagrant swinging if someone is hit, knocked out, otherwise all is good. It appeared to me he was swinging with a purpose.

The elbow did not seperate from the rest of the body, there was no "swinging", it was a pivot with the elbow connected to the rest of his body that Race happened into. That siad I do not like the cyledar rule, but can see the need for it. Once they said they were review to see if flagerant, making the call on Race was their only option

 

[Pryght]

in the second half? I thought they were only allowed to do that the last two minutes of the game.

My understanding is they reviewed the play to determine whether Wyoming's center committed a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2. Instead, they changed the call so it was a foul on Race Thompson.

That was a huge call!

In hindsight, that call helped IU, given that Geronimo played SO MUCH better than Race last night.